Getting Proactive about Homelessness
By Israel Bayer, who lives in both Seattle and Portland. Israel works with the North American Street Newspaper Association, and at Real Change, a community newspaper in Seattle, WA. He is the former Director of Street Roots in Portland. He also blogs at Rocket Poetry.
The Bush Administration's 10-year plan to end homelessness, and projects like Homeless Connect are bandages to a broken system. Here is a short list of alternatives for putting poor people back to work at very little costs to the taxpayer.
Art installations: Portland has a love for the arts. The city offers a substantial amount of money for public art projects compared to other local governments. Why not take 5% of the money going towards public art projects, and hire local homeless, and poor artists to install installations around the city. There's no shortage of artists on the streets. City Repair Project, and P;EAR would be great organizations to oversee an on-going project like this.
Coffee-carts: Portland can't get enough of the Java. For the price of 5-10 subsidized coffee-carts (very low-cost) you could employ 10 workers at a living wage. The money made from the carts would subsidize labor costs -- and the city wouldn't have to pay a dime for on-going operational costs.
Veggie/hotdog carts: Same premise.
Street cleaners: Pay several homeless workers to clean the bus malls. (I believe a program like this was already in place through the Portland Business Alliance when the respected Kevin Smith was living, but has since been slashed from the city's budget.) Street cleaners could also be hired to work high traffic areas along 23rd Avenue, Alberta, and Hawthorne. Contracts could be given through ONI, or Southeast Uplift.
Parks cleanup: Same premise as street cleaners. Citizens often complain, and sometimes, rightfully so about the amount of debris built up by people sleeping on the streets in public parks. Why not hire people on the streets to clean certain high trafficked areas. Contracted through Parks and Recreation, or a group like JOIN.
In an effort to work with the private sector, who according to the PBA, is up to it's neck with homelessness, and panhandlers throughout the city -- private companies would also benefit from joining in such an effort. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are thrown away in dealing with poverty through the guise of public safety.
Portland has dropped the ball on homelessness by backing the Bush Administrations short-sided approach to dealing with more than 3 million people sleeping on America's streets after shelter beds are full. I understand hands are tied, but that doesn't mean the city can't be proactive. We don't have to accept what the Administration is giving. Portland can do better than that.
|
March 3, 2006 |
guest column
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Mar 3, 2006 9:56:55 AM
We could change our name to Rio De Portland, complete with a tram, where dignity is defined as a portable shelter on an unused parking lot.
Posted by: geno | Mar 3, 2006 12:48:23 PM
Imagine, a city bus which travels each morning to homeless for hire stops located near known homeless congregations. The bus proceeds to a variety of parks and other locales where crews are hired for day work and returned to their stops with city vouchers for goods available for purchase, including, donated & surplus govt. cars, cell phones/calling cards,donated computer equip.,Tri-met passes, basic necessities etc.
Perhaps in addition to a store, the city owned facility might house a buffet of donated food. Several internet accessible used computers.A locker room for showers, with a used clothing repository.
You know, maybe there is a vacant school which might fit the bill. Just a thought about helping those who wish to help themselves. The staff to run the facility would serve as additional day employees as well.
Posted by: NWW | Mar 3, 2006 2:38:17 PM
Maybe everyone's out to lunch, or maybe the city is out to lunch on this one. While the ideas above seem liks a great fit, officials really haven't been to verbal on homelessness or affordable housing. People say we are working on affordable housing, but no concrete plan has been developed. Does anybody know what some of the longer strategic thinking is by the city on creating more affordable housing in Portland?
Posted by: ZN | Mar 3, 2006 5:05:59 PM
This link gives people a good insight...
http://www.cdnportland.org/CDN_news_022106.html#CDN_Council_Debate
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Mar 3, 2006 7:01:31 PM
Confine all participation to "cooperative" structures so that the tenants get to keep the property after the federally subsidized loans and state tax breaks expire.
It is only the poor folks in Dignity Village that wish to retain their dignity.
The Catholic sponsored enterprises, and all manner of new-entrepreneur, are racing to sell their dignity for a little long term thinking by securing their piece of rental property. Their future depends upon the existence of a perpetual-poor class. It is sick and twisted.
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Mar 3, 2006 7:12:01 PM
Just in case I wasn't direct enough or blunt enough - I was referring to the progressive notion of spewing out tripe about Affordable Housing to meet the housing needs of the poor.
Posted by: NNW | Mar 3, 2006 7:53:38 PM
"The Catholic sponsored enterprises, and all manner of new-entrepreneur, are racing to sell their dignity for a little long term thinking by securing their piece of rental property. Their future depends upon the existence of a perpetual-poor class."
In what context are you talking about Ron?
Posted by: Justin | Mar 3, 2006 8:56:53 PM
Interesting note: Portland State University had a contract with some sort of disadvantaged worker program like you are suggesting - but it was dropped within the past year.
Working as janitors, they received a ton of complaints on how poorly a job they did - many never showed up to work, most of the restrooms on campus were filthy as if they were never being cleaned, etc. Their contract was replaced by a normal janitorial service and the service is much better.
Not sure which one cost more money, tho.
Posted by: Ron Ledbury | Mar 3, 2006 9:03:29 PM
The public purpose behind support for Affordable Housing is the existence of folks who's wages cannot keep up with the artificially induced price-appreciation of housing.
Some might say all people should join the speculative frenzy.
Some might say stop the easy lending practices.
Some might say if you are going to give away a house let it not be to the non profit but to the person who will live in it. Thereby making it wholly unnecessary for the non profit to even exist.
Imagine that Portland's fancy scheme for matching renters to landlords was instead a fancy scheme to match people who want to join a housing coop with openings of slots where people have left a coop. The federal law for subsidized interest rates for the non profits that build Affordable Housing is actually written neutrally so as to allow cooperatives with just as much ease as that for non-profits.
The discussion of Homelessness implies the need to meet people's housing needs. At least it does to me. The notion that as a class the poor can be given jobs, as if they are needy, needs to be redirected at the non-profit owners of the buildings that receive public benefits through characterization of a project as Affordable Housing. Are they needy? Heck, they would not exist were it not for the existence of the actual needy people that are left behind by our monetary system that has put asset appreciation on the top of the list of the currency regulator's priorities.
Just go to the Portland website for matching the poor to housing, get the list of landlords and do some due diligence. Then you will find the financial source of the political push for Affordable Housing. Propose Cooperatives as an alternative and see what happens to the politics.
-- The original post did note the word "proactive." This is proactive, planning out 20 to 30 years.
Posted by: NWW | Mar 3, 2006 9:30:08 PM
An excerpt from Homeless Connect data from the January 17, Note: No one was housed, and TPI had to put people on waiting lists for shelter beds. This is not getting to the source of the problem.
The 10-year Plan Goal:
Engage the community to be apart of the effort to end homelessness in the City of Portland and Multnomah County by 2015, through the implementation of the 10-year Plan to End Homelessness.
The Objectives of PHC: COMMUNITY CONNECTION
ÿ To demonstrate broad community support to those experiencing homelessness in Portland and to provide human connections to people who feel and are typically alienated.
ÿ To connect Portland’s homeless to needed services in a “one-stop” model.
ÿ To connect volunteers to Portland’s homeless for this day of service as well as future opportunities to help people in need.
ÿ To connect service providers with each other in order to serve the homeless in a new and different way.
...
By the Numbers:
ÿ 900 people were welcomed at PHC.
ÿ 26 people conducted intake between 10:00AM and 3:30 PM
ÿ 12-20 people conducted exit interviews through 5:00 PM
ÿ 10 people entered data all day.
ÿ More than 400 volunteers assisted in the day.
ÿ 1,300 people were fed courtesy of the Oregon Food Bank and NW Natural.
ÿ More males than females came through PHC.
ÿ The most requested assistance from the clients was housing/shelter and medical attention.
ÿ 386 people were given housing counseling. No one was housed. Some went into shelters that evening.
ÿ 41 people were given bicycles.
ÿ 500 Tri-met bus passes were provided for clients with follow-up appointments.
ÿ 120 clients asked for legal assistance.
ÿ So far, Transition Projects has worked with over 15 people referred by the DMV to get ID cards issued. (The costs of up to 30 ID cards are being covered by the State of Oregon Housing and Community Services department.)
Vision:
ÿ 33 people received eye exams.
ÿ 66 people got vouchers to go downtown for an eye exam.
ÿ 99 received Lens Crafter prescription eye-glasses.
Legal:
ÿ 120 clients were counseled.
Other data is still being calculated.
Benefits:
ÿ 19 veterans were counseled on benefits
ÿ 50 people filled out applications for food stamps
ÿ approximately one-hundred clients came through to inquire about Social Security Insurance, disability benefits, and various other programs.
Housing
ÿ 386 clients were counseled
ÿ 68 were put on shelter wait-lists at Transition Projects Incorporated.
ÿ 107 were put on HAP wait-lists for public housing.
Other data is still being calculated.
Mental Health/Alcohol and Drug
ÿ 36 individuals referred to treatment
ÿ 20+ other individuals were given information and pretreatment intervention, but declined referral
Other data is still being calculated
Medical and Dental:
ÿ More than 300 people were received in the Medical/ Dental section.
ÿ 125 of the 300 requested dental care. Some dental care was provided on site and 22 appointments were provided through referrals.
ÿ 50 follow-up appointments were provided through Multnomah County SE Dental Clinic the next day.
ÿ 265 clients requested medical care.
ÿ 100 clients were provided diabetic screening.
ÿ 60 clients received pedicures and podiatry.
ÿ Over 1,000 follow up medical appointments were provided by OHSU, Providence, Legacy, and Kaiser Hospitals.
Pet Care:
Y23 dogs and 5 cats were served.
ÿ 5 clients were provided follow-up information.
ÿ All animals received vaccines, and basic treatments for parasites and minor infections, clothing for the elements and resources for further assistance.
ÿ Free collars, leashes and harnesses were offered (and very popular.)
All animals were in excellent health and well tempered. Several of the clients were more interested in services to their companion animals than in going inside to get services. The humans were strongly urged to go inside and take advantage of the things being offered.
Exit:
Bags with shampoo, soaps, fruit, cotton socks, wool socks and a Marriott Hotel blanket were offered. The Marriott Hotel sent over about six volunteers, some of whom stayed all day helping to give out the bags.
Posted by: Israel | Mar 3, 2006 11:26:06 PM
Just a couple thoughts - The diversity in funding for a particular non-profit will usually refelect
how flexible they can be when thinking out of the box. For example, if a organization is actually funded by the community - private donors that actually believe in the work being done they usually have a bit more freedom to take risks, and incorporate ideas from the ground up.
If non-profits don't have a diverse funding stream and our tied to government, and foundation support, over time they are forced to follow the trends of critical thinkers who have never stepped foot in the trenches. This excludes your larger non-profits who can politically drive an agenda based solely on the property they own, and the influence they muster not only in the community, but behind the scenes where most decisions are made.
One of the problems many critics, politicians, policy geeks, and the people on the ground have with this stuff is, one, there's no formula considering the free market world we live in, and two, the mountains of red tape concerning the charity models we've built can't easily be undone, nor shifted politically do to a number of different circumstances. So rational, or out of the box thinking gets rejected in the vaccum created when say, an administration says, "Ok, we're going to do this now" Everyone stands on one foot and gets in line for funding - and at times will tear one another down in the process. Getting a bunch of social workers and advocates to agree that everyone can get a slice of the Bush pie is not as communual as one would think for the work we are suppose to be representing.
The guest column above wasn't meant to be anything more than an creative sugestions on how we could spend a few thousands dollars, and have some great projects in Portland that could possible yield some dough, some jobs, clean up the city, and give individuals some hope - all positive things for the community.
Ok, I'm tired so forgive any mispellings...
Posted by: Gil Johnson | Mar 3, 2006 11:33:06 PM
I especially like the idea of employing homeless and starving artists to do art installations. I'm sure they would do better than the nonsense and junk you currently see at MAX stops and other so-called public art.
There are a lot of opportunities for labor-intensive solutions to civic problems that we could explore. Has anyone had an urgent need for bladder relief while walking in downtown Portland? There used to be some public restrooms, but most if not all are closed now because of vandalism. When I lived in the Czech Republic a decade ago, matrons were employed as monitors in each public restroom, charging a small fee for the use of the facilties (more for toilet paper). The presence of a real person staffing the restroom would prevent vandalism and the small charge per customer would pay that person's wages. Think about this idea the next time you are downtown and in severe distress and all you can see are signs saying, "Restrooms are for our customers only."
Over in the Nob Hill district (which isn't the Pearl, though some people seem to think it is), there is an ongoing feud between residents and businesses about parking, which is scarce there. This is a classic battle of the haves vs. the haves. The business people want to build high rise parking garages where old houses now stand, and the neighbors of course are aghast at this idea. There is plenty of parking on the fringes of the neighborhood. To my mind, it would cost less and preserve the neighborhood for the businesses to chip in and cooperatively pay parking valets, just like the restaurants do.
Posted by: NNW | Mar 4, 2006 1:27:42 PM
The Homeless Connect figures end with this sentence.
"... and a Marriott Hotel blanket were offered. The Marriott Hotel sent over about six volunteers, some of whom stayed all day helping to give out the bags."
A little PR love to one of the most anti-Union Corporations in America - The Marriot.
Thanks for the blankets and volunteers Marriot! How about some living wage jobs?
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Mar 4, 2006 9:24:31 PM
Those are all swell ideas. But, in case anyone didn't notice, "putting poor people back to work" isn't going to solve homelessness all by itself. You can give folks 13 jobs, but if they aren't regular or don't pay a living wage, they still can't pay the rent (or the deposits, and the credit checks just to get in).
Do the math people. Minimum wage is $7.50/hr. x 40 hours/week = $300/wk. An average 1 BR apartment is something like $600/mo. That's 50% of gross income for shelter alone.
Posted by: NWW | Mar 4, 2006 9:44:02 PM
Madam,
I'm not sure your point. So you like the ideas, but we shouldn't do anything because it won't solve homelessness. What would you suggest then?
And unfortunately, thousands of people are forced to do that math every month.
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Mar 4, 2006 11:40:32 PM
My point was, that there are more and more working people (and families) that are becoming homeless and that finding work isn't the problem for many - probably most.
My point was, that a minimum wage job cannot pay for the basic necessities. If 50% of your gross income is consumed by shelter expense alone, you're not getting by (legally) without some sort of assistance.
And I'm not sure the point of your comment "thousands of people are forced to do that math every month". That was the gist of my remark, after all.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much by thinking that you put that in the third person because you aren't in that financial position. If so, I apologize. But if you were, you'd also know that in order to even rent most places, you have to make enough so that your rent isn't more than 30 - maybe 35% - of your income. That means to get into a $600/mo apt - you need to make at least $2000/mo. - about $11.60 per/hr. full-time.
Go ahead - give 'em all jobs - it wouldn't hurt and would help a lot. But don't expect it to solve homelessness. That was my point.
I don't have a magical answer. I would suggest as a start that all the $, tax breaks, corporate welfare, etc., going to developers of "affordable" housing be given directly as Section 8 housing vouchers to the thousands who've been rotting on line at HUD for three or more years.
I'd also quit disseminating all that $ down through umpteen layers of government. Believe it or not, Section 8 and Food Stamps are 2 programs the federal government has administered fairly well. It's ridiculous that different areas (ie: counties) have such vastly different resources available for only their residents.
My personal experience:
Finding myself suddenly single with two children in tow, unemployed without a vehicle and living in rural Clackamas County, I knew I wasn't going to be able to pay the rent the next month. I wasn't going to be able to pay anything. Planning ahead, as responsible people try to do, I began the humiliating hunt for public assistance. Something just to keep us afloat for a short time until I could find work. But you can't even begin to get help until you have an eviction notice.
I could go on forever about all that - but let's stick to housing.
Unless you're an abused, addicted or single woman - there is no emergency housing help in Clackamas County - despite what all the referral lines and web sites say. Even then, there are only a couple of very limited capacity, short-term shelters. IF you can get in, you are guaranteed only 3 weeks to stay at which time they may be able to move you to another shelter - but maybe not. And - if you have kids -no boys allowed over age 12. And, I'm legally required to enroll my children in the school district of the shelter. So they have to hop schools every 3 weeks, and my boy goes into foster care.
Clackamas County told me to move to Multnomah County because they have more money and better programs. So I call them up, tell them my sad tale. But alas, I can't apply for emergency housing assistance in Multnomah County because I don't live there. I tell them I'll soon be living NOWHERE, can apply then? No. I have to have a Multnomah County address to get housing assistance!
Sorry for that long-winded rant. But, I wanted to illustrate the non-ending minute details that plague those of us honestly trying to stay afloat. These are things that I believe a lot of the people thinking up these ideas have no understanding of.
It's that kind of simplistic thinking that got us welfare reform.
BTW - did you know that 30% of the children in state custody are there due to lack of appropriate housing? Why are we willing to pay foster parents 3-4 times more per child than we are willing to give those children's own mother to raise them at home?
Posted by: NNW | Mar 5, 2006 12:22:26 AM
I think we are on the same side of the fence, and we are talking about apples and oranges.
I agree with your points...
You opened with, "My point was, that there are more and more working people (and families) that are becoming homeless and that finding work isn't the problem for many - probably most."
And then went on to say, "Something just to keep us afloat for a short time until I could find work. But you can't even begin to get help until you have an eviction notice."
I'm not trying to point out anything negative I'm just trying to say; finding a job is a problem for people and the above posts are just trying to kickstart the idea that we need some smaller models for people on the streets, because right now there's not a lot in the City of Portland.
Again, I think we are on the same side of the fence, and thanks for sharing your thoughts...
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Mar 5, 2006 12:49:59 AM
Thank you for being so gracious. I really don't mean to be snippy. Sorry if I came off that way. This stuff hits close to home, obviously.
I'm just really dismayed (I'm sorry to repeat myself) about how it seems a lot of folks here - which is the pulse of the Oregon Dems, right? - don't really understand what it's like to be in these dire straights. I'm not necessarily including you in that group - like you said we seem to be on the same page.
I just found this link that says what I've been trying to a whole lot better: Who's Your Daddy?
Posted by: Gil Johnson | Mar 6, 2006 9:15:38 AM
Let's apply a little critical thinking to the issue of housing for people making minimum wage. It certainly depends on what people you are talking about.
A single person making minimum wage certainly doesn't need a one bedroom apartment at $600 a month. There are plenty of studios at $400 a month. Or people can do what they already do, get roommates. Two people can share a $600 a month one bedroom and thus spend only $300 a month each. They aren't going to live like kings and queens, but they will get by just like thousands of other people do.
The problem here isn't high rent (the rental market in Portland has been soft for a few years). It's meeting landlord criteria. Things such as bad credit, prior evictions or a criminal record will kill a person's chances of renting most places. And, as Saul Alinsky noted, poverty is not an ennobling experience, so poor people are going to have these things on their records.
People with children should be making more than minimum wage. If they aren't, they should get other assistance, which they do, although not as much as before. Section 8 (which subsidizes renters) has been cut back quite a bit, both in the number of people served and the amount of subsidies granted.
The focus of any jobs or housing policy should be on families. Before we start making policy, however, it would be good to know how many homeless people are single and how many have children.
One final thought: who says the jobs created by the ideas put forth above have to be minimum wage?
Posted by: Madam Hatter | Mar 6, 2006 3:24:43 PM
I agree that critical thinking certainly needs to be applied to this issue - and hopefully, every issue. Your comments about single people who earn minimum wage being able to better afford a studio or a place with a roommate are true enough.
But you then qualify this by rightly stating that landlord criteria is very often a difficulty a lot of these people cannot overcome. Isn't the result the same?
In the interest of critical thinking, I have questions about another of your comments:
"People with children should be making more than minimum wage. If they aren't, they should get other assistance, which they do, although not as much as before."
What "other assistance" are you referring to and how are you so sure they do get it?
Food stamps and POSSIBLY, the Oregon Health Plan (its only recently been opened up for enrollment again) are the only real assistance that MAY be available. Neither of these provides a cash benefit which doesn't help pay the rent. Yes, your food & medical expenses are reduced, which frees up some cash for the bills, but not enough to pay for housing. And as your income rises, your benefits go down.
As you noted, Section 8 funding has been cut back under Bush's watch. Even before, however, the waiting list in Clackamas Co. is at least 4-5 years and probably more.
The ONLY cash benefit for families is TANF - which is the biggest joke of them all. The income level and the benefit amount have not been changed since 1994, I believe. That means that a single parent with two children cannot make more than about $650/ month to be eligible, and the maximum benefit for that family is $504/ mo. Again, as income rises - benefits go down.
In addition, stringent requirements are not supported by the funds needed by "clients" to participate. A single mom in Sandy is given only $40/month for transportation costs to attend daily activities in Milwaukie, for example. If you cannot comply, you (and your children) are monetarily sanctioned. It's a vicious circle of "pretend" help.
So, yes please, let's use critical thinking here. I'm growing weary of all the "experts" out there who blithely make these statements based on assumptions or common myths. Don't make assertions that there is a safety net out there any longer OR that people who need it are getting help. They're NOT.
Posted by: grannycat | Jun 9, 2006 2:14:56 PM
I do commiserate with you, madam. For myself, but more for my daughters who have young children.
I noticed that the State has an acutely appalling method of calculating child support, even for the poorest of single moms. They get a way-below-poverty-level amount for child support, even though the other (main paying) parent has plenty of income. Extreme inequity there. The single moms and kids are some of the lowest-income and part of the homeless population & near-homeless in large numbers.
So who are these people determining the levels of child support in State calculations? Fixing this aspect of the income problem could help.
NOTE: what really galled me, was that the State didn't actually calculate based on what my daughter was earning. She had been unable to find work for a long time. They were calculating based on the highest wage she had ever made in the past! On what they figured she COULD earn! Even though her actual income at the time was -0-!!!!
Now there's a huge injustice that should IMMEDIATELY get fixed and that could help so many, to create a little more income equality and paying ability.
Posted by: wsomkyvzb gkuqc | Sep 22, 2007 5:57:13 AM
udtzkslr ucrbaj etaild zcoukyl xhspzbkf kipgzwhjm qgfyna
Posted by: accupril tablet | Sep 23, 2007 1:54:04 AM
Posted by: lisinopril | Sep 24, 2007 9:43:18 AM
Posted by: zestril online | Sep 25, 2007 6:02:51 PM
Posted by: 250mg lamisil | Sep 27, 2007 4:38:10 PM
Posted by: 250mg lamisil | Sep 28, 2007 6:21:42 AM
Posted by: generic tegretol | Sep 28, 2007 2:19:54 PM
Posted by: generic zestril | Sep 28, 2007 3:18:09 PM
Posted by: cephalexin effects keflex side | Sep 28, 2007 4:48:18 PM
Posted by: cephalexin tablet | Sep 29, 2007 7:31:46 AM
Posted by: cephalexin 250mg | Sep 29, 2007 9:28:32 AM
Posted by: aldara prescription | Sep 29, 2007 10:19:19 AM
Posted by: aldara prescription | Sep 29, 2007 10:19:19 AM
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Posted by: NWW | Mar 3, 2006 9:28:49 AM
These are some really interesting ideas, and it seems possible in a place like Portland.