WSJ's Take On Homeless Counts…

The Wall Street Journal calls homeless counts limited… The title of the article is, “Ambitious Homeless Count Fills A Void, but Has Its Limitations.”

New York City performed its annual homeless count recently, and a WSJ reporter tagged along.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates that jurisdictions do a homeless count at least once every two years in order to receive HUD funds. New York City is doing theirs every year.

Los Angeles performed its homeless count in early 2005, and released the results in early 2006. They plan to do it again in 2007.

The WSJ reporter states this about the counts, “The count has significant limitations, and should be considered more of a best effort, given available resources, than a precise census.”

He goes on to say that counts are also subject to the “vagaries of weather.” For example, if it is real cold outside, there may not be as many visible homeless to count.

Interestingly, NYC also utilizes “decoys”, people who pretend to be homeless by dressing up the part. The final count is adjusted upwards based on how many decoys are missed.

I am, of course, a proponent of homeless counts. We can’t solve a problem if we don’t know the extent of it. I think L.A. should be counting every year, or at least “hot spots” (like downtown, Westside, and Hollywood) every year.

Our programs and funding should be accountable to results.

Rural Communities Also Facing The Increase In Homelessness

I was the keynote speaker at a homeless conference in Kings Tulare County yesterday. It is about 3-1/2 hours north of Los Angeles along Highway 99.

I shared with them some of the commonalities between urban and rural communities regarding homelessness.

1 - The number of homeless is GROWING in both urban and rural areas. Homelessness is a result of a broken anti-poverty system. With no safety net, people end up homeless in both urban and rural areas.

2 - The HOUSED community is losing PATIENCE.

In our urban areas, those who used to be very supportive of homeless services, are just plain tired of seeing the problem not being resolved—and in fact, seeing it increase. That is why NIMBYism is so strong.

Here’s an entry from a blogger who lives in Porterville (in Kings/Tulare County) written on 12/28/05. “Porterville is still helpless in managing the outbreak of homeless people. I say outbreak like it’s some sort of disease. It’s not but it really does seem to happen all of a sudden. It’s almost as though other towns are sending these folks over here… There is literally a campsite two streets down from Main Street, next to the fairgrounds along the railroad tracks. The other popular site is on the banks of the Tule River, where many homeless folks can be found…”

3 - POLICE become the “first responders” and ORDINANCES/Laws are becoming the common response to homelessness.

Tulare City Council is proposing an ordinance that cracks down on panhandling—people can’t beg for money, food or shelter. The ordinance is aimed at what Vice Mayor Phil Vandegrift calls “manipulators” who refuse programs that could help them out of their homeless situation. Two other ordinances are being proposed: prohibit “squatter camps” and the removal of shopping carts from shopping centers.

Last month, in Porterville, dozens of homeless people were forced to leave a makeshift tent city on land off East Olive Avenue by city officials and the police.

In Los Angeles County and cities—in urban and suburban areas—they are doing the same thing… people are tired of the problem, and are desperately trying anything to solve it. Many local LA cities have ordinances… they now struggle how to enforce them.

4 – There is a lack of RESOURCES in both rural and urban areas.

The rural communities complain that the urban areas get all of the money and attention regarding homelessness.

The urban areas are so overwhelmed with homelessness, that current resources are just a drop in the bucket.

Fostering Homelessness: One Emancipated Youth At A Time

That’s the title of a chapter in my book on how emancipated foster youth are becoming homeless. It looks like the State Legislature is also catching on to the fact that just because foster youth turn 18-years-old doesn’t mean they can live self-sufficiently.

A press conference was held yesterday to announce proposed new legislation that would hopefully create a safety net for the 86,000 California youth who are in the foster care system.

Here is the list of legislation:

-- SB1576 (Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles) Transitional housing for emancipated youth: Builds on THP-Plus housing program for emancipated youth by restructuring funding, which currently requires a 60 percent match from counties to participate. Only three counties participate, due to this requirement.

-- AB2495 (Assemblywoman Karen Bass) Parity of services between Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program (Kin-GAP) and foster care: Gives relative caregivers the same funding as basic foster-care families. Under the Kin-GAP program, relatives who gain permanent guardianship of foster youth are given a stipend, but not a clothing allowance or additional funds for youth with special needs.

-- SB1667 (Sen Shelia Kuehl, D-Santa Monica) Review hearings: Authorizes foster parents and relative caregivers to attend all review hearings relating to the adoption or legal guardianship of the minor, and to submit relevant information to court in writing. Many life-altering decisions regarding a foster youth are made by attorneys and judges who barely know the child, if at all. This bill ensures that foster parents have access to hearings.

-- AB2216 (Assemblywoman Karen Bass) Child Welfare Leadership and Performance Accountability Act of 2006: Addresses the lack of coordination among state and county agencies, leading to vast inconsistencies in services. This measure attempts to create a structure for leadership and accountability for all who provide foster-care services by calling on the state to review ways to unify counties, courts and the state.

Giving Away Cash To The Homeless Just Doesn’t Work

When will people realize that handing out dollar bills to people living on the streets just doesn’t make sense.

Last Friday, a cash giveaway event in front of San Francisco’s City Hall almost turned into a riot. An artist from Novato (pictured above) decided he would generously pass out ten dollar bills, something he had done the day before. Here's the article.

Unfortunately, 500 homeless people were there expecting their quick tens. After the artist decided not to give the money away (either he was too intimated by the crowd or just didn’t have enough bills), the crowd became hostile.

These acts of “charity” are not new. On Christmas day, a priest gives away dollar bills to the homeless in downtown Los Angeles.

If you look at these acts in purely compassionate terms, it is a nice thing to do.

However, the reality is that the money should be spent to help empower people who are homeless, or at least help provide them a place to stay. Handing out cash is not a realistic approach to helping people get off the streets.

I certainly hope these acts are not ways for people to just “feel good” about themselves, at the humiliating expense of people living on the streets.

Is Cleaning Up Skid Row A Racist Act?

There is an interesting perspective on the “debate” over how to clean up downtown L.A.’s Skid Row… or in this case whether we should even clean it up. (Thanks to Downtown Central City East blogger for bringing this issue up.) This new perspective is this… the latest clean up effort is actually an act of racism.

As we all know, the focus on cleaning up L.A.’s notorious homelessness mecca—Central City East, or “Skid Row”—has sharpened in the last six months. From law enforcement finger pointing, homeless “dumping” accusations among cities, celebrities being arrested in the area, to the State Legislature wanting to pass laws… all for the sake of cleaning up an embarrassing neighborhood.

In its latest newsletter, L.A. Community Action Network (LA CAN) published an article called, “The Fear of a ‘Black Planet.’” This is what it says about the latest articles on homelessness in Skid Row and the trend toward gentrification…

“What LA CAN reads in these mass media articles, as we look deeper, are the messages that support gentrification: 1) Racism is alive and kicking in downtown Los Angeles, through the vilification of an entire community based on often unfounded stereotypes; 2) Fear of Black men threatens the success of business ventures, such as trying to sell and rent luxury housing; and 3) Wealthy people simply will not pay for million dollar properties with poor Black folks living too close to them, so there must be a justification for moving them out.”

The local “Los Angeles Garment & Citizens” paper calls all of this the “San Julian Street Standoff” that pits local officials and developers against the local residents (including the homeless and poor.)

What is my take in all of this? (I write about gentrification in my book, "How To Increase Homelessness".)

However, in this case, I don’t think the color of the residents is the issue. If anything, it is a socioeconomic struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The big question is this… what is the real agenda for cleaning up Skid Row? Is it so developers can make millions off of building million-dollar lofts? Is it because public officials are embarrassed over this blighted neighborhood? Or is it because we really want to help those who are languishing on the streets of Skid Row?

Given my experience interacting with public officials and interested parties in the last year, I do sense that our community really wants to help people who are homeless on our streets.

I don’t think this is a “color” issue. And given that the L.A. City Council is seeking to stop the redevelopment of downtown SRO hotels (typical homes for the poor and homeless) from becoming market-rate housing, I don’t think the “haves” are trying to take over the “have-nots” housing.