Homelessness Myth #5: Sleep-Walking Will End Homelessness

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

Some of us ignore the issues of homelessness.  When we walk past homeless people, we may even pretend that these people do not exist.  I call the act of ignoring homeless people who are right in front of our eyes, “sleep-waking past homeless people.”

Of course, sleeping is a natural function for all human beings.  Mark Stibich, PhD. wrote in About.com Guide, updated on May 8, 2009, that sleep is important for people because:

1.  Sleep keeps your heart healthy; 2.  Sleep may prevent cancer; 3.  Sleep reduces stress; 4.  Sleep reduces inflammation; 5.  Sleep makes you more alert; 6.  Sleep bolsters your memory; 7.  Sleep may help us lose weight; 8.  Naps make you smarter; 9.  Sleep may reduce your risk for depression; and 10. Sleep helps the body make repairs.

From reading this lengthy list of benefits, it is obvious that sleep is very helpful to our well-being.

However, one thing that sleeping will not do is help to end homelessness.  Since the 1970’s, homelessness has increased and homeless people have become a familiar sight.  Often, housed people turn a blind eye to the plight of homeless people.  But why?

In my experience, some housed people ignore homeless people for a variety of reasons.  Perhaps the most common reason is that these housed people are afraid of becoming homeless themselves.  This fear is similar to the fear of contracting a disease that some of us experience when we are around a person we know has a disease.

By merely acknowledging the existence of a homeless person, some housed people are reminded of the fragility of their own economic existence.  They begin to think that their job and/or savings could go away and they remind themselves that they are only a paycheck or two away from becoming homeless.  This fear is based upon today’s economic reality.

Further, homeless people are often ignored because some of us housed people have become so familiar with what we deem to be their unsightly images, the “blight of homelessness,” that we just want homeless people to go away.  We are not surprised to see homeless women and men. Rather, we have come to almost expect to see homeless people standing on the corner or sitting in the park. The expression, “familiarity breeds contempt” may hold true in this case, particularly with regard to homeless adults.

Perhaps, some of us are surprised to see children we think are being unsheltered with their parent or parents. Seeing children who are unsheltered is not a familiar sight because they are usually either in school and/or being hidden by their parent(s).

Homeless parents sometimes hide their child to avert the perceived threat that their child will be taken away from them by law enforcement authorities. I say “perceived threat” because homelessness is not in itself enough grounds for the police to take away children from their homeless families. However, if a child is in danger because of being homeless or if their parent(s) is suspected of being an unfit parent, for example, the police have a positive duty to protect the child and remove the child.

Finally, some housed people may be afraid of some homeless people because these homeless people are strangers. As children, we are taught to be afraid of strangers with instructions such as, “Never talk to strangers!”  This fear of strangers is meant to protect children from danger.

However, adults have a greater ability than children to understand life situations and the new people they encounter.  While fear of the unknown is a common fear, we adults can change unknown strangers into acquaintances through the simple technique of introducing ourselves to people when we meet them.

By “sleep-walking past homeless people,” we will never solve homelessness. We cannot end homelessness by ignoring the problem.

We need to wake up!

Only by being aware of something, can we affect it.  Only by becoming aware of the issues of homelessness, will we be able to solve them.  Awareness of the issues of homelessness comes through opening our eyes and truly seeing homeless men, women and children.

Once we are awake and aware of the plight of homeless people, we can educate ourselves by directly serving those in need, by assisting people and programs already in place to help others and by attending workshops and seminars on the topic of homelessness.  Through our own education, we can understand what we can do to help those in need.

Finally, through compassion, which is factually love in action, we can resolve the issues of homelessness.

I suggest the following steps to cure “sleep-walking past homeless people:”  Awareness, Education, Understanding and Compassion.

Homelessness Myth #4: There’s Room In The Inn

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

On December 8th, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that on the previous day, the County of San Diego, California experienced one of “the most powerful winter storms in several years…bringing damaging winds, record-setting rainfall and several inches of snow to the mountains.”

My homeless friend Maurice supplied me with the following video of the situation of homeless people in downtown San Diego and the efforts of Alpha Project president, Bob McElroy, to help homeless people cope with the challenging weather.  This video, as you will see, was filmed just outside the Emergency Winter Shelter, run by Alpha Project, which was filled to capacity.

Some background from the San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless 2009 Point In Time Count:

1.  In the County of San Diego, there are a total of 7,892 homeless people of whom:

  • 4,014 homeless people are living on the streets
  • 965 homeless people are living in emergency shelters
  • 2,913 homeless people are living in transitional housing

2.  In the City of San Diego, there are a total of 4,338 homeless people of whom:

  • 1,868 homeless people are living on the streets
  • 656 homeless people are living in emergency shelters
  • 1,814 homeless people are living in transitional housing

Homelessness Myth #3: Unsheltered People Only Count At Night

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Renewal (HUD) requires that every two years during the last seven days of January, Continuum of Care (CoC) systems (those agencies that HUD funds on a competitive basis) count the number of homeless people within their geographical areas.

HUD guidelines suggest that the best practice for counting homeless people is to count unsheltered homeless people on the same night as counting people staying in shelters or when the shelters are closed.  Thus, while the counts of homeless people living in shelters take place during the day, the counts for unsheltered homeless people generally take place from midnight until 4:00 a.m., or from very early in the morning, often beginning before 4:00 a.m.

In 2007, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the lead agency for Los Angeles CoC, counted 68,608 homeless people residing within the Los Angeles CoC.  Not included within the Los Angeles CoC count were the cities of Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena, which counted a total of 5,094 homeless people in their cities.  Thus, in 2007, the total count of homeless people in Los Angeles County was 73,702.

On October 28 of this year, LAHSA released its January 27-29, 2009 count of homeless people that found that 42,694 homeless people reside within the Los Angeles CoC. Again, not included within the Los Angeles CoC count were the cities of Glendale, Long Beach and Pasadena, which counted a total of 5,359 homeless people in their cities.  Thus, in 2009, the homeless population in Los Angeles County was counted as 48,053.

While 48,053 homeless people is an extremely large number, representing misery for thousands of men, women and children, this number is surprising to some service providers because it represents an unexpected 38% decrease in the number of homeless people counted in 2007.

In its press release, “New Census Reveals Decline in Greater Los Angeles Homelessness,” LAHSA attributes this 38% decrease in the number of homeless people counted in Los Angeles County in 2009 to “progress in the City’s and County’s efforts at reducing homelessness.”

Of particular interest are the statistics that LAHSA quotes in its press release stating that:

[t]he decline in the numbers for Los Angeles appears consistent with similar national decreases [in the number of homeless people counted] seen in areas like: 

New York: 30% decrease
Indianapolis 22% decrease
Riverside County 22% decrease

 

I propose that counting all homeless people, whether sheltered or unsheltered, during the day would yield a more accurate number of the people who are homeless.

1. Finding unsheltered homeless people at night is problematic. In some cities, there is police activity to break up illegal public camping.  However, on those nights at the end of January every two years, enumerators look forward to finding encampments so that they can find homeless people to count.

It would appear that the police and the enumerators are working at cross-purposes.

2. Would you like it if a team of enumerators came to your home in the middle of the night?  Some homeless people know about the count process and may not want to be disturbed so perhaps they find more out-of-the-way places to stay on census nights.

3. Some unsheltered homeless people stay awake at night.  Why?  Because sleeping at night “outside” puts homeless people in a very vulnerable state.  They often sit in well-lit areas or on buses, or they walk.

The unsheltered homeless people who do try to sleep at night often look for quiet, private places so they are protected from prying eyes, possible attacks and the elements.

4. I suggest that the enumerators bring non-perishable canned and packaged food with can openers to these hungry, poor people.  This act of charity could make the counting experience something that homeless people might look forward to and for which they would make themselves more available.

5. Unsheltered homeless people can be more easily found during the day in public places, in food lines and at service providers’ locations.  Why not utilize the organizers and volunteers at these locations to help introduce the enumerators to their guests?

Finding unsheltered working homeless people can be accomplished by talking to the organizers, volunteers, service providers or friends who know these homeless people.

6. Concerned about double counting homeless people? Homeless people are knowable.  Prior to the official counting dates, a team could just go out, meet homeless people and bring much-needed canned or packaged food.  By knowing in advance many of the people they are counting, enumerators would know to avoid counting the same person twice.

Further, in the case of meeting a homeless person who enumerators have not previously met, the enumerators could simply ask the homeless person if he/she has been counted already.  Once a trust or friendship has been established between any enumerator and any homeless person, this information will be more readily forth coming.

7. It would be helpful if each team of enumerators were accompanied by a trained mental health professional.  Stress is a challenge for all of us and certainly homeless people experience a great deal of stress.  Thus, by their mere calming presence, these mental health professionals would be providing a valuable service.

It is important for many reasons, including justifying the funding of homelessness services, that homeless people be counted.  However, we must be as creative in our thinking about the ways to count them as homeless people are creative in the ways that they survive on the streets.

As fellow human beings, homeless people are entitled to our respect, need our help and deserve our compassion.

Homelessness Myth #2: “They’re All Bums!”

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

Absolutes can be tricky because there is usually an exception that “proves” or breaks every rule.  We have often heard the expression, “Never say never!” We generally know in our hearts that in the world of human beings, no one is perfect, no rule remains unbroken and no expressions are absolute.

The same is true with homeless people. There are no absolutes. Just based on what we intuit about the world around us, we know that each homeless person is a unique person – just a housed person without the home.

Whether a person can be called a bum actually depends upon how, of course, we define the word, “bum.” However, anyone chooses to define that word, I think most of us would agree that children are not bums under any definition.

In my experience, I have found that approximately 25 percent of homeless people are children. Together, women and children make up close to 40 percent of homeless people and are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population. They have not chosen homelessness as a life-style; rather, homelessness has been forced upon them.

Escaping battery is one reason why women become homeless. When women leave their batterers, they generally take their children with them. Battered women’s shelters are testaments to this experience. Not unlike homeless shelters generally, most of the battered women’s shelters are full.

Another reason women and children become homeless is the impact of a challenging economy upon single mothers. Since the first working mom sought employment, finding a job and arranging for childcare so she could go to work have been huge issues. In the past, however, some of these working moms had family that they could rely on to some extent for support.

Today, large distances separate many family members and extended family finances have dwindled due to a host of economic circumstances. Thus, poor mothers often find they are unable to get help from their already overstressed family support system.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009, will hopefully help prevent more people from becoming homeless. On October 8th, LaDonna Pavetti, director of the Welfare Reform and Income Support Division of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support that the ARRA  “prevented millions of Americans from falling into poverty and has helped some states to forgo significant cuts that would have weakened the safety net for very poor families with children.”

Part of ARRA, the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) as administered through the States and their Continuums of Care may help homeless women and children become housed. Since applications for assistance are just now being made available to potential participants, the impact of the HPRP is yet to be felt.

The opinions that some housed people may have of homeless people may be understandable, but their opinions are uneducated. For example, some housed people may see homeless people sleeping in public during the day and conclude they are lazy.

In truth, many homeless people choose to sleep during the day because it is too dangerous for them to sleep at night because that is when they are most vulnerable.

Some time ago, I accompanied students from Crossroads High School in Santa Monica as they made a short film about homelessness in their city. I introduced them to my friend, “Charles,” who spoke to them very frankly about his experiences since he became homeless.

Charles shared that although he was over 6 feet tall and weighed over 230 pounds, he was afraid to sleep at night.

“Why?” asked the surprised students.

Charles was slightly embarrassed when he confessed that when he slept at night he was afraid someone would hurt him. Instead, he chose to sleep during the day and in well-trafficked areas because he felt that the constant flow of people would provide him with an additional measure of safety.

Charles asked the students if they had read the reports of some young people who had killed homeless people while they slept.

Bums or people protecting themselves? You decide.

Homelessness Myth #1: “Get a Job!”

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

This post begins a series of articles about the myths surrounding homelessness. Myths are just widely held thoughts or beliefs that are not generally true. Possibly one of the most widely expressed myths is that homeless people would not be homeless except for the fact they don’t want to get a job.

First, many homeless people are employed while some even have two jobs. Usually, these people sleep under some kind of shelter. They may be living in a homeless shelter or transitional housing situation, on someone else’s couch or in someone’s garage. Since the foreclosure crisis, many families have formed “tent cities” from which they work.

Second, in order to get a job, people must be clean and they must wear clean clothing.   Even at McDonald’s and other fast-food restaurants employees are required to be clean. County, state and federal rules and regulations provide the standards by which fast-food restaurants must abide for the health and safety of their patrons.

Proper sanitation facilities are essential so that people and their clothing can be clean and meet the most basic qualification for a job–cleanliness. Without access to toilets, showers and laundry facilities, how are people to keep themselves and their clothing clean?

There are few public toilets, fewer public showers and even fewer public laundry facilities available to homeless people. Toilets and showers are available to students of community colleges, so some homeless people try to enroll in classes. Places like the YMCA have public toilets and showers, but day or membership fees are required that most homeless people cannot afford.

Some years ago, most of the public toilets available to homeless people were in fast-food restaurants or at gasoline service stations.

As the number of homeless people increased, the owners of fast-food restaurants began to lock their restroom doors and charge 10 or 25 cents per use. Of course, tokens to the restrooms were made available to restaurant patrons at the counter.

The restrooms at gasoline service stations were also closed to the public, with access to their toilets restricted through keys available only upon request by patrons. Today, a number of service stations have permanently closed their restrooms to the public by displaying “Out of Service” or “Out of Order” signs on their doors.

To be fair to the owners of fast-food restaurants and gasoline service stations, homeless people sometimes overuse restroom facilities by “bathing” in the sinks, which could potentially damage the plumbing. Other times, some homeless people may spend too long in the restrooms, thereby depriving other patrons the use of the facilities within a reasonable period of time. Further, if people have not had access to a shower or laundry facilities for a time, an odor can be detrimental to business.

How can homeless people clean themselves and their clothing? One answer to this question was the concept of “Housing First,” first popularized by Tanya Tull, founder of Para Los Ninos and Beyond Shelter.  This concept, which proposes housing creation for homeless people must come before or at least in tandem with job creation, has now been popularly accepted.

Unfortunately, sufficient housing for homeless people has been slow in developing and most, if not all of the shelters are full with long waiting lists for future available living space.

Offering public toilets and public showers equipped with available laundry facilities is another answer. Because there is an entire industry involved in the design, construction and rental of portable lavatories and showers, municipalities could quickly make these available to homeless people. Perhaps these public restrooms and showers could be situated near city-owned or operated laundry facilities.

Of course, municipalities could just maintain their existing public toilets and showers on a twenty-four hour a day basis, seven days a week, for their homeless residents.

Cities could also contract with existing homeless shelters to provide public toilets, showers and even laundry facilities to non-resident homeless people.

Third, not every person–housed or homeless–is capable of working. For example, in my experience, 35% of homeless people have problems with mental illness. Some of this mental illness is mild and some is totally debilitating.

To include housed or unhoused mentally ill people within the workforce requires mental health assistance. Certainly, there are mental health programs available for people regardless of their housing situation. However, unhoused people have the additional challenge of finding and pursuing mental health assistance while they have no permanent residence. I think most of us can agree this challenge could be overwhelming for many homeless people.

“Get a job!” is an easy expression to say. However, for some homeless people, getting a job is an impossible dream.

Breaking Homelessness News: Tens of Thousands Detroit Residents Apply for HPRP Funds

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

Yesterday, I wrote what I considered an academic piece describing The Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), the $1.5 billion part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) that President Obama signed into law this past February.

Today, my friend, Maurice, sent me the following two videos published on YouTube – one of which has just been aired on television – which show what actual HPRP funding means to people in Detroit, Michigan:  Tens of thousands of Detroit residents are standing in line to receive applications for HPRP assistance.

A few facts for background…

•  The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2006, the population of Detroit was 871,121.

•  The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2006, the population of Michigan was 10,095,643.

•  In Detroit, the unemployment rate is nearly 30%.

•  In the State of Michigan, the unemployment rate is 15%, the highest in the nation.

• Detroit will be receiving approximately $15 million in direct HPRP funds, plus an additional $3 million in HPRP funds through the State of Michigan for a total of just over $18 million in HPRP funding.

•  The Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) will be receiving approximately $22 million in HPRP funds, $3 million of which will be disbursed to Detroit.
Video #1: Associated Press, October 7, 2009  on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV2ngvYI_ZU

The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP)

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

On February 17th, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) into law.   The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is administering $1.5 billion of this $787 billion stimulus package through its Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP).   HPRP funding is truly significant since it equals HUD’s entire annual homeless assistance budget.

While the overall goal of HPRP is housing stability for those being helped, HPRP funds will provide two-fold relief:

1. Homelessness prevention assistance for households who would otherwise become homeless and

2.  Rapid re-housing assistance for persons who are homeless.

HPRP funds are intended for short- and medium- term financial assistance for housing stabilization, linking program beneficiaries to community resources, and mainstream benefits and helping beneficiaries develop a plan for preventing future housing instability.  It is noteworthy that HPRP funds are not for mortgage assistance nor are they intended to provide long-term support for beneficiaries.

HUD provides the following funding table  to show the intended categories for distribution of HPRP funds:

ActivityFunding Level
Direct financial assistance, such as rental assistance, etc.                 $820,875,000.00
Housing relocation and stabilization services                                    $447,750,000.00
Data collection and evaluation by grantees                                       $149,250,000.00
Grantee administrative costs                                                              $74,625,000.00
HUD will provide training, technical assistance, monitoring
enforcement, research and evaluation activities                                     $7,500.000.00

TOTAL                                                                                          $1,500,000,000.00

By the terms of ARRA, each HPRP grantee must expend 60% of their grant within two years of receipt and 100% of its grant within three years of receipt of its grant.

With a grant minimum of $500,000, funds have been awarded to U.S. territories (0.2 percent of total funding allocation, i.e., $3 million), metropolitan cities, urban counties and states for distribution to local governments and private nonprofit organizations.  There are 540 eligible grantees  and funds have been awarded pursuant to the Emergency Solutions Grant Program, formally the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program, formula.

Under HRPR, grantees will provide reports on a monthly and quarterly basis and HUD will do remote monitoring. Further, grantees and subgrantees will collect data through the Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS).

HPRP funds may benefit individuals or families with or without children for any number of months up to 18 months of assistance.  However, these funds are to be paid only to third parties, such as landlords or utility companies, “[i]n an effort to…avoid mismanagement of grant funds.”

The ultimate beneficiaries of HPRP funds, known as “participants,” are those people who are homeless or are at risk of being homeless.  While HUD “allows grantees significant discretion in program design and operation,” it does admonish that “grantees and subgrantees should carefully assess a household’s need and appropriateness for HPRP.”

HUD sets forth the following minimum criteria that grantees of HPRP funds must consider before assisting individuals and families, whether homeless or housed:

1.  Participants must have initial consultation with a case manager who can determine the appropriate type of assistance to meet their needs,

2.  Participating household must be at or below 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI).  While income limits are available at http://www.huduser.org/DATASETS/il.html, grantees are advised to use HUD’s Section 8 income eligibility standards for HPRP and

3.  Participating households must be either homeless or at risk of losing its housing and
(1) No appropriate housing options have been identified, plus
(2) The household lacks the financial resources and support networks needed to obtain
immediate housing or remain in its exiting housing.

Regarding the prevention of homelessness, HUD “strongly encourages” its HPRP grantees and subgrantees to assist those individuals and families at the “greatest risk of becoming homeless.”   It asks that grantees and subgrantees remember to ask themselves, “Would this individual or family be homeless but for this assistance?”

Grantees in California include:

Alameda    552,208.00
Alhambra    567,605.00
Anaheim 2,046,908.00
Bakersfield 1,372,351.00
Baldwin Park    605,041.00
Berkeley 1,332,952.00
Chula Vista            819,738.00
Compton    848,514.00
Costa Mesa            560,237.00
Daly City    510,070.00
Downey    611,834.00
El Cajon    512,686.00
El Monte 1,110,506.00
Escondido    709,782.00
Fremont    682,331.00
Fontana    783,380.00
Fresno 3,130,746.00
Fullerton    622,710.00
Garden Grove 1,068,707.00
Glendale 1,346,899.00
Hawthorne            703,261.00
Hayward    703,342.00
Huntington Beach            566,611.00
Huntington Park            656,002.00
Inglewood    918,344.00
Irvine            540,656.00
Lancaster    564,646.00
Long Beach         3,566,451.00
Los Angeles       29,446,304.00
Lynwood    646,575.00
Merced    515,203.00
Modesto    966,016.00
Moreno Valley    732,872.00
Norwalk    633,782.00
Oakland 3,458,120.00
Oceanside    742,791.00
Ontario    997,869.00
Orange    545,636.00
Oxnard 1,124,994.00
Palmdale    615,530.00
Pasadena    908,395.00
Pomona 1,164,766.00
Rialto    546,485.00
Richmond    559,735.00
Riverside 1,383,070.00
Sacramento 2,375,126.00
Salinas 1,013,978.00
San Bernardino 1,455,066.00
San Diego 6,168,104.00
San Francisco 8,757,780.00
San Jose 4,128,763.00
Santa Ana 2,831,989.00
Santa Maria            521,839.00
Santa Monica    553,576.00
Santa Rosa            516,527.00
South Gate            865,273.00
Stockton 1,725,572.00
Sunnyvale    508,191.00
Westminster            511,454.00

Alameda County    802,915.00
Contra Costa County         1,421,551.00
Fresno County 1,634,630.00
Los Angeles County       12,197,108.00
Kern County 2,076,503.00
Marin County            659,106.00
Orange County 1,556,026.00
Riverside County 4,276,900.00
Sacramento County 2,396,773.00
San Bernardino County 3,040,382.00
San Diego County 1,925,974.00
San Joaquin County 1,460.619.00
San Luis Obispo Country      855,184.00
San Mateo County 1,166,526.00
Santa Barbara County    829,013.00
Santa Clara County            717,484.00
Sonoma County    817,572.00
Stanislaus County 1,023,163.00
Ventura County    826,094.00

State of California       44,466,877.00

Funding directly allocated to the State of California is the largest state allocation in the U.S. to date and is being distributed to 31 California agencies and local governments.  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has commented, “This funding will boost efforts helping those who find themselves on the edge of homelessness and add support for the homeless – and it couldn’t have come at a better time thanks to President Obama’s Recovery Act.”

What outcomes are hoped to be achieved through HPRP?

• Reducing the length of stay in shelters or in homelessness
• Reducing the number of people experiencing homelessness for the first time
• Increasing the number of people who are diverted from shelter to stable housing
• Reducing repeat episodes of homelessness
• Reducing the number of people overall who are homeless

For additional information about HPRP, please visit www.HUD.gov/recovery and www.HUDHR.info.

Do Homeless People Have Rights?

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

If you think the public debate about universal health care is loud and sometimes acrimonious, just think about what would happen if we ever start talking about whether homeless people have rights.

What rights would we be talking about?  I couldn’t say it better, so here it is from the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), the unanimous declaration from the thirteen original colonies:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, the Declaration of Independence does not contain a list of our rights. We know some of our rights because they are contained in:

(1) U.S. Constitution, particularly the first ten amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights.

(2) Congressional legislation, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.  and

 

(3) Court decisions through which the courts, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, interpret the Constitution and identify rights, such as the right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

 

The terms, “homeless person” or “homeless people” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. So how to we know what rights, if any, homeless people have?

 

Today, some of the rights of chronically homeless people  are being determined through the courts.  For example, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC) has filed lawsuits against the three Cities of Laguna Beach,  Santa Barbara  and Santa Monica   alleging that their ordinances against sleeping in public places and the enforcement of said ordinances violate the rights of chronically homeless residents who have no other place to sleep.

 

In each of these lawsuits, the ACLU/SC

 

• claims that while there is an insufficient number of homeless shelter beds in each of these cities, the police are intimidating, harassing and arresting their chronically homeless residents for the natural and involuntary act of sleeping in public when there is no way for them to comply with the law;

 

• seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Cities and their police forces from enforcing said ordinances against chronically homeless people; and

 

• requests a declaration from the court that the ordinances in question and the enforcement of said ordinances, violate chronically homeless people’s rights to equal protection under the law,  their rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment,  their rights to due process of law,  their rights to be free of illegal searches and seizures,  and their rights to freedom from discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

 

There are a few differences among the lawsuits.  The Laguna lawsuit  was brought on behalf of five named plaintiffs, while the Santa Barbara  and Santa Monica  lawsuits were brought on behalf of named plaintiffs and also as class actions.

 

Further, in the Santa Barbara lawsuit,  the ACLU/SC seeks to protect chronically homeless people’s rights from illegal takings of their private property without just compensation.  And unique to the Santa Monica lawsuit,  is the claim that the referenced ordinances and their enforcement violate the rights of chronically homeless to travel and move freely.

 

While the lawsuits against the Cities of Santa Barbara  and Santa Monica  are still pending, the City of Laguna lawsuit  was settled this June.  As part of the terms of this settlement, the City of Laguna agreed

 

(1) to repeal and did repeal those sections of the municipal code relating to camping and sleeping in public places within the City

 

(2) to expunge the records of arrests and convictions made pursuant to the City’s ordinance against sleeping in public and

 

(3) not to cite, arrest or harass people under State law simply for sleeping in public places in cases where there are no reasonable public health or safety concerns.

 

After the City of Santa Monica passed their ordinance against sleeping in all public places, I asked a high-ranking Santa Monica official a question.  I said, “Of course, homeless people cannot sleep on private property, that’s against the law of trespass.  However, now that the City of Santa Monica has passed a law against sleeping in all public places, where are homeless people to go?”

 

He answered, “Into the sea.”

 

If every city with an insufficient number of shelter beds were to pass an ordinance against sleeping in all public places, there would be no place for a homeless person to sleep.  This is the real danger facing homeless people.

 

The rights that the ACLU/SC is seeking to protect are the rights that belong to all of us — in this case, the rights of disabled people who are homeless to sleep in public places and to exist in these United States.

 

Service Providers, Unite!

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

It seems that every service provider has a solution to homelessness.  And guess what, it’s their own program!  That’s fine with me, except service providers generally do not play well with other service providers.  They generally don’t share their programs, they generally don’t share their ideas and they generally don’t share their praise of other programs.  It’s this sharing that, in my opinion, is necessary to arrive at working solutions to the issue of homelessness.

Who are service providers? Municipal governments generally consider service providers to be government agencies, nonprofit corporations and for-profit corporations that provide shelter, food, clothing and necessary items to people in need.  Sometimes these services are free and sometimes these services have a price tag for poor and homeless people.

Municipal governments do not generally consider the individuals and groups who just go out and directly serve those in need in public as service providers.  These individuals and groups are the Good Samaritans who are spoken of and encouraged by every religious and spiritual organization and/or by their own conscience.  I call them, non-government service providers (NGSP).

Unfortunately, municipal governments do not generally consider NGSPs to be “in the continuum of care” because NGSPs are independent of government control, funding and licensing. Municipal governments often foster a “we” and “they” mentality between the government and the NGSPs by passing constitutionally questionable laws, such as requiring a permit for legal NGSP efforts, in an effort to control or end the activities of the NGSPs.

What all service providers, including the NGSPs, do is keep very busy with their own programs.  Fundraising alone is a full time job.  Nevermind running the program and actually helping people in need.

Their time is full, more than filled with everything that they need to handle to get their program running.  There is no time left for communicating with or meeting with other service providers.  So, service providers end up being insulated in their own extremely busy worlds away from the possibly helpful experience of sharing with other similarly situated service providers.

What concerns me most about this business-imposed isolationism among service providers is that service providers tend to criticize solutions to homelessness proposed by service providers other than themselves.  It happens all of the time.

Recently, I was discussing possible solutions to homelessness with a noted service provider who actually runs two homeless programs.  She stated to me that she was against any program through which homeless people were segregated from society, as in a self-sufficient village.  She only favors solutions to homelessness that mirror her own program, that is helping homeless people get vouchers and funds so that they can rent apartments in the midst of the city.

Her solution to homelessness is wonderful. Of course, some homeless people can be helped through this program, but only as long as apartments, vouchers and funds are available.  This service provider admitted that she could not help all of the homeless people coming to her for assistance because of limited available apartments, insufficient number of vouchers for rent and rising rents in existing apartments.

Another service provider recently commented to the press that no one should give water and food to people living outside because homeless people who received these handouts were then not motivated to get services from service providers. What he meant was that once they had some water and food, homeless people would not be motivated to seek services from his program.

But, some of the services in this service provider’s program have five-week waiting periods.  What are homeless people supposed to eat and drink during the five weeks they are waiting for his program’s services?

Let’s end this bickering.  Any service provider doing something good for those in need is really doing something great!  Here are three things that may be helpful for service providers to consider.

1.  The charitable giving of food and water by NGSPs is a band-aid approach to ending homelessness.  However, when we have a cut, a band-aid is the appropriate method of protecting our cut from further damage, infection. Food and water are necessary to life.  The goal here is to keep people alive for the day, a noble goal to be sure.

2.  When NGSPs give food and water to homeless people, this generosity is usually limited to once or twice a year or, at best, once a week.  Does anyone actually believe that homeless people can live on sporadic acts of generosity?  It is not logical to expect homeless people to avoid any additional services just because they occasionally receive food and water from another source.  When in need, people seek out all available services.

3.  Why criticize other programs be they government, corporate or NGSP programs?  The issue of homelessness has many sub-issues, including emergency assistance to homeless people, short and long-term housing solutions and employment opportunities. No one program that I know of provides all of the services needed by homeless people.

The real solution to homelessness is to work together.  Cooperation in goodwill is love in action.  Let’s do it!

Remembering Mama Lee

Posted on by cjschomelesslaw

Also published on The Huffington Post.

I never knew when Mama Lee was born and I don’t remember the exact day in 1995 when she died, but I knew and loved Mama Lee during the ten years she was a homeless Vietnam veteran living on the streets of Santa Monica, California.  Born in Texas, Mama Lee was a full-blooded Comanche Indian whose married name was Yvonne Starsky.  Yvonne served as a military nurse in Vietnam during the 1960s when our government claimed that we had no women in combat’s way.

It was near the end of her second tour of duty in Vietnam when Yvonne stepped on a “bouncing Betty,” a small landmine that was meant to maim, not to kill.  Indeed, the bomb destroyed the inside of both of Yvonne’s legs.  Upon her return to the States, Yvonne took “Mama Lee” as her street name and used vodka as her pain medication.

Her use of vodka as a painkiller caused Mama Lee not to be acceptable as a resident of any homeless shelter.  So, for ten years, Mama Lee spent many days sitting on a bench in front of Santa Monica City Hall and slept in the doorway of the Santa Monica Culinary Union, then at the corner of Fifth and Colorado, in Santa Monica, California.  During the harshest weather, the police would occasionally take Mama Lee to jail for public drunkenness in an effort to protect her health.

It was only during the last two months of Mama Lee’s life that she was permitted to reside in a homeless shelter.  After Mama Lee learned that she needed a heart operation and she was able to secure a doctor’s prescription for vodka as her pain medicine, the homeless shelter agreed to house her.  Unfortunately, Mama Lee died in the homeless shelter before she was able to have her heart operation.

Mama Lee shared the little resources she had with the homeless people she knew.  Recognizing the common bonds among all people, Mama Lee said that the worst treatment a homeless person could receive is to be ignored by people walking by.  She spoke with love and about love to everyone who took the time to speak to her.  Everyone, housed and unhoused, who knew Mama Lee, cared for her.

Well, perhaps not everyone loved her.  One night as she slept in the doorway of the Culinary Union, Mama Lee was robbed.  Upon learning the identity of the robber, Mama Lee said that he needn’t have robbed her because she would have given him the money if he had asked.  I know that to be true.

Although her money was never returned, the robber did eventually apologize to Mama Lee.  For her part, Mama Lee did not hold a grudge against her robber.  The news of her robbery spread among homeless and housed people.  Mama Lee was never robbed again.

Mama Lee, frail and short, appeared under 5 feet tall as she hunched over her ever-present walker.  Because of her diminutive stature, she had to look up to most of the people to whom she spoke.  To me, Mama Lee towered over all.

Despite the constant need and subsequent use of her pain killer, vodka, Mama Lee was acutely aware of her life as a homeless person.  She knew that she was homeless and she never complained about being homeless.  In fact, Mama Lee often consoled other homeless people when they were sad and depressed about their condition.

This was the life of a woman I respected and loved.  My homeless friend, Vietnam veteran, Mama Lee.

I look forward to your comments.