Bush Homeless Czar Replaced
The National Coalition for the Homeless asked for a new director of the InterAgency Council on Homelessness to set a new direction for the federal government. The Obama Administration has made that change this last week. Philip Mangano was let go, and replaced by Peter Dougherty formerly of the Department of Veterans Affairs as acting director. This is a huge step, and it will make a huge difference in national policy toward addressing homelessness. I have never been a fan of Mr. Mangano after listening to his same tired speech over and over. I met with him once in DC as part of my position with the National Coalition for the Homeless Board of Directors, and could not stand to hear him spin and pass off propaganda as fact. So, I skipped the other meetings with Mr. Mangano over the last few years.
David Corn wrote the book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandel and the Selling of the Iraq War with Michael Isikoff, a perfect book for the career of Philip Mangano and his quest to end homelessness. He has a lot of nerve claiming a success when homelessness is up across the country and more and more children have become homeless in America. He wrote this amazing piece of fiction upon his departure taking credit for a decrease in homelessness (fiction), re-framed the countries response to homelessness (except in New Orleans), and I think he took credit for the election of the first African American President. He used the same Abolishinist themes in his going away letter that he used in every speech that he made over the last seven years in 350 different cities.
My big issue was that mainstream programs like public housing and the voucher program were decimated over the last 10 years, and Mangano never spoke up to criticize his boss for proposing these policies. He calls this the Abolitionist Agenda, but I am not sure that John Brown and Frederick Douglas would support this characterization. This was more like the Separate But Equal agenda where you try to solve homelessness for one group (long term homeless), while all the rest of the populations suffer. This is not a Housing First model as detailed in his letter of resignation. This is a Housing After You Hit Rock Bottom approach. Homeless people who have suffered the longest will be offered housing while all the other affordable housing in the community will be condemned and taken down.
Thank you for leaving the stage, Mr. Mangano. Now we can get to work solving this national embarrassment of homelessness.
Brian
Posts reflect the opinion of those who sign the entry.
Showing posts with label long term homeless. Show all posts
Showing posts with label long term homeless. Show all posts
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Battle of the Statistics
Veterans Make Up One Fourth of the Population
The National Alliance to End Homelessness released a study earlier this week measuring the extent of the problem among veterans and they found the problem was growing. The headlines were that military veterans make up one quarter of the homeless population, and we are beginning to see people entering the shelters who recently served in Afghanistan or Iraq. In the same week, the Department of HUD released a questionable study that showed a decrease in long term homelessness. The right wing latched onto the second study proclaiming not just the limited success of the study, but declaring victory in reducing the number of homeless people in the United States. It defies logic that when we walk down any street in any city in America we see the same number or more homeless people but we are told that Washington DC policy has worked in decreasing homelessness.
NEOCH absolutely agrees with the peer reviewed study released by the National Alliance. These are the same statistics we see locally. We do not see the large number of recent veterans that they are seeing on the coasts that is mentioned in the report. The Coalition has responded by making sure that every one of our programs is responsive to the veterans programs. We have a developed a veterans initiative to assure that every veteran has access to legal assistance, housing, voice mail, advocacy, and the Stand Down. The other alarming trend that we are seeing is a larger number of women veterans who are becoming homeless and seeking shelter.
Government in Action--HUD
In order to justify the spending of your taxes, every city now has to count the number of homeless people. While this is a nearly impossible task, it also is costly. The City of Los Angeles recently spent $800,000 to count 88,000 homeless people in their city. That is a little over $9 per person counted or 67 people who could have been given one years worth of rent in order to not be homeless at the fair market level in the expensive city of LA. We waste all this time and energy counting homeless people and we come up with bogus numbers that somehow get spun into a decrease in long term homelessness.
HUD uses these counts to proclaim victory in their fight to reduce long term homelessness, and I am sure that the next step is to use these numbers to justify a decrease in funding. Since the public does not understand the difference between long term or "chronic" homeless and just regular homeless people, the headlines proclaimed general victory in reducing the number of people facing homelessness in America. This is an incorrect use of the stats, besides being wrong. A few cities (my guess is two) have made progress on long term homelessness, but certainly not Cleveland. No way that Washington, San Francisco, Columbus, or Atlanta have seen any noticeable decrease in the homeless population after ignoring the problem for 15 years. Long term homelessness as defined by HUD are those who have been homeless for a year or 4 episodes over two years, and make up between 10-20% of the total population. If family homelessness (40% of the total population) increases by 2% and we allow HUD their 2% decrease in long term homeless there are still more homeless people for a community to deal with.
The problem is that all of this spin is false. I have seen how cities manipulate these counts. They either reduce the number of beds or services so that they do not have to count as many people or they just cannot figure out a way to count people who refuse to enter shelter. This magically results in a decrease in the homeless count in a city and HUD proclaims a success. Don't Believe the Hype.
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness released a study earlier this week measuring the extent of the problem among veterans and they found the problem was growing. The headlines were that military veterans make up one quarter of the homeless population, and we are beginning to see people entering the shelters who recently served in Afghanistan or Iraq. In the same week, the Department of HUD released a questionable study that showed a decrease in long term homelessness. The right wing latched onto the second study proclaiming not just the limited success of the study, but declaring victory in reducing the number of homeless people in the United States. It defies logic that when we walk down any street in any city in America we see the same number or more homeless people but we are told that Washington DC policy has worked in decreasing homelessness.
NEOCH absolutely agrees with the peer reviewed study released by the National Alliance. These are the same statistics we see locally. We do not see the large number of recent veterans that they are seeing on the coasts that is mentioned in the report. The Coalition has responded by making sure that every one of our programs is responsive to the veterans programs. We have a developed a veterans initiative to assure that every veteran has access to legal assistance, housing, voice mail, advocacy, and the Stand Down. The other alarming trend that we are seeing is a larger number of women veterans who are becoming homeless and seeking shelter.
Government in Action--HUD
In order to justify the spending of your taxes, every city now has to count the number of homeless people. While this is a nearly impossible task, it also is costly. The City of Los Angeles recently spent $800,000 to count 88,000 homeless people in their city. That is a little over $9 per person counted or 67 people who could have been given one years worth of rent in order to not be homeless at the fair market level in the expensive city of LA. We waste all this time and energy counting homeless people and we come up with bogus numbers that somehow get spun into a decrease in long term homelessness.
HUD uses these counts to proclaim victory in their fight to reduce long term homelessness, and I am sure that the next step is to use these numbers to justify a decrease in funding. Since the public does not understand the difference between long term or "chronic" homeless and just regular homeless people, the headlines proclaimed general victory in reducing the number of people facing homelessness in America. This is an incorrect use of the stats, besides being wrong. A few cities (my guess is two) have made progress on long term homelessness, but certainly not Cleveland. No way that Washington, San Francisco, Columbus, or Atlanta have seen any noticeable decrease in the homeless population after ignoring the problem for 15 years. Long term homelessness as defined by HUD are those who have been homeless for a year or 4 episodes over two years, and make up between 10-20% of the total population. If family homelessness (40% of the total population) increases by 2% and we allow HUD their 2% decrease in long term homeless there are still more homeless people for a community to deal with.
The problem is that all of this spin is false. I have seen how cities manipulate these counts. They either reduce the number of beds or services so that they do not have to count as many people or they just cannot figure out a way to count people who refuse to enter shelter. This magically results in a decrease in the homeless count in a city and HUD proclaims a success. Don't Believe the Hype.
"Throughout American history many of our social gains and much of our progress toward democracy were made possible by the active intervention of the federal government. " Harold WashingtonBrian
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Emerald Commons Ribbon Cutting
Who is Paying for All this Supportive Housing?
In the Sunday Plain Dealer, Joe Frolik, did a nice overview of supportive housing and the new Emerald Commons Project. Then yesterday, WCPN, did one hour on the supportive housing fad that is sweeping the country. We have talked about these projects in the past, and disclosed the reservations that we have for supportive housing. Today, is the ribbon cutting for the Emerald Commons project.
Don't get me wrong...These are great projects and anyone would love to live in one of these buildings. In fact, every homeless person should have access to these kind of buildings. What never gets discussed is where is all this money coming from? Dan Malthroup tried to get to this discussion when he talked about the value of the $9 million that went into the Emerald Commons project on WCPN. Unfortunately, this he did not dig deep enough on this issue. The champions of these programs keep telling the public that supportive housing saves money, but they never answer the question, "Are those systems that are seeing savings, paying for these programs?" We heard over and over that these projects save health care costs, criminal justice costs and alcohol treatment costs, but are any of these systems paying for these buildings? No, the Cleveland Clinic did not contribute, nor did the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and the Alcohol and Drug Board is not giving money to these projects. So, if they are saving all this money why aren't they paying the costs for the building?
Who is paying for these services and the building's capital costs? Money directed at poor people and homeless people are the individuals paying for these projects. By their own admission, the long term homeless (the only people who have access to these buildings) make up 10-15% of the total homeless population, so why are we paying the majority of the budget for these projects? Why is 30% of the homeless dollars in our community going to these projects when these groups only make up 10-15% of the total homeless population? How many family vouchers (40% of the homeless population) would $9 million pay for? How many in-patient recovery beds for the addicted (60% of the homeless population) could we buy with this money? How many vouchers with case management could we buy for those with a mental illness (32% of the homeless population)? My concern is that no one is making strategic economic decisions with the homeless money we get, and no one is talking about how we are going to fund the supportive services for these buildings in the long run.
The other big issue that the champions try to put forward is that the long term homeless use 60-80% of the resources so if we can free up these resources then we have more money for families, mentally ill, and alcohol and drug treatment. First of all I don't believe these statistics are universal for every city. Secondly, the problem with this theory is that the only way this logic works is if you solve long term homelessness, but no one is planning on solving this problem. We heard that Columbus is doing 500 units over 7 years, and Cleveland is doing 1,000 units over 7-10 years. This is not going to solve the problem and during that time another 5,000 more long term homeless will ask for help along with all the other homeless people who knock on the front door of our shelters. So, you will not close one shelter bed and demand will still be the same as before one of these units opened. There will still be the same number or more of those experiencing homelessness who sleep outside and the same number or more in shelters after all these millions are spent on supportive housing locally. Also, while not solving the problem, we are actually creating other populations like families who will be long term homeless because all the resources are used for the disabled.
It is similar to a giant vat dropping Skittles at a rate of 10,000 per year or over 800 rainbow colored Skittles per month into your bedroom. You cannot use your bedroom while 800 Skittles keep dropping on you as you sleep, so you decide to pick up the Skittles that have been on your floor the longest. You spend 30% of your monthly income on a box to hold your Skittles that you clean up. You pick up 1,000 Skittles or 143 Skittles a month out of your bedroom over seven years during which time another 70,000 Skittles dropped from the inappropriately located vat in your bedroom. Would you notice a difference between the 70,000 rainbow colored Skittles if you did nothing or the 69,000 Skittles left after spending time and 30% of your income every month for seven years trying to clean up your bedroom? You would have one really nice box of Skittles on your desk, but not much else. It is a silly example, but so is supportive housing championed as a solution to homelessness. Either get rid of the vat that keeps dropping Skittles or clean up all the Skittles as they fall or your efforts will never be noticed by the community. At the end of the seven years and the millions spent, the public is going to be ticked off that there is no visible change in the landscape except these very expensive Skittle boxes.
Brian
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
In the Sunday Plain Dealer, Joe Frolik, did a nice overview of supportive housing and the new Emerald Commons Project. Then yesterday, WCPN, did one hour on the supportive housing fad that is sweeping the country. We have talked about these projects in the past, and disclosed the reservations that we have for supportive housing. Today, is the ribbon cutting for the Emerald Commons project.
Don't get me wrong...These are great projects and anyone would love to live in one of these buildings. In fact, every homeless person should have access to these kind of buildings. What never gets discussed is where is all this money coming from? Dan Malthroup tried to get to this discussion when he talked about the value of the $9 million that went into the Emerald Commons project on WCPN. Unfortunately, this he did not dig deep enough on this issue. The champions of these programs keep telling the public that supportive housing saves money, but they never answer the question, "Are those systems that are seeing savings, paying for these programs?" We heard over and over that these projects save health care costs, criminal justice costs and alcohol treatment costs, but are any of these systems paying for these buildings? No, the Cleveland Clinic did not contribute, nor did the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and the Alcohol and Drug Board is not giving money to these projects. So, if they are saving all this money why aren't they paying the costs for the building?
Who is paying for these services and the building's capital costs? Money directed at poor people and homeless people are the individuals paying for these projects. By their own admission, the long term homeless (the only people who have access to these buildings) make up 10-15% of the total homeless population, so why are we paying the majority of the budget for these projects? Why is 30% of the homeless dollars in our community going to these projects when these groups only make up 10-15% of the total homeless population? How many family vouchers (40% of the homeless population) would $9 million pay for? How many in-patient recovery beds for the addicted (60% of the homeless population) could we buy with this money? How many vouchers with case management could we buy for those with a mental illness (32% of the homeless population)? My concern is that no one is making strategic economic decisions with the homeless money we get, and no one is talking about how we are going to fund the supportive services for these buildings in the long run.
The other big issue that the champions try to put forward is that the long term homeless use 60-80% of the resources so if we can free up these resources then we have more money for families, mentally ill, and alcohol and drug treatment. First of all I don't believe these statistics are universal for every city. Secondly, the problem with this theory is that the only way this logic works is if you solve long term homelessness, but no one is planning on solving this problem. We heard that Columbus is doing 500 units over 7 years, and Cleveland is doing 1,000 units over 7-10 years. This is not going to solve the problem and during that time another 5,000 more long term homeless will ask for help along with all the other homeless people who knock on the front door of our shelters. So, you will not close one shelter bed and demand will still be the same as before one of these units opened. There will still be the same number or more of those experiencing homelessness who sleep outside and the same number or more in shelters after all these millions are spent on supportive housing locally. Also, while not solving the problem, we are actually creating other populations like families who will be long term homeless because all the resources are used for the disabled.
It is similar to a giant vat dropping Skittles at a rate of 10,000 per year or over 800 rainbow colored Skittles per month into your bedroom. You cannot use your bedroom while 800 Skittles keep dropping on you as you sleep, so you decide to pick up the Skittles that have been on your floor the longest. You spend 30% of your monthly income on a box to hold your Skittles that you clean up. You pick up 1,000 Skittles or 143 Skittles a month out of your bedroom over seven years during which time another 70,000 Skittles dropped from the inappropriately located vat in your bedroom. Would you notice a difference between the 70,000 rainbow colored Skittles if you did nothing or the 69,000 Skittles left after spending time and 30% of your income every month for seven years trying to clean up your bedroom? You would have one really nice box of Skittles on your desk, but not much else. It is a silly example, but so is supportive housing championed as a solution to homelessness. Either get rid of the vat that keeps dropping Skittles or clean up all the Skittles as they fall or your efforts will never be noticed by the community. At the end of the seven years and the millions spent, the public is going to be ticked off that there is no visible change in the landscape except these very expensive Skittle boxes.
Brian
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Disability and Long Term Homeless
Two Interesting Stories About Poverty
Marcia Bufford Update
In case you missed it Andrea Simakis had a very good story/summary/update on how Marcia Bufford has fared since the shooting in 2006 that appeared in yesterday's Plain Dealer. We had regular blog updates last year about Bufford here and here and here. I really like Andrea's writing, and she weaves a very good story with her profile of Marcia. Anyway, Marcia has struggled with poverty, and the inability to find a job that does not require her to be on her feet. She has struggled paying her bills and complete her school. She has had a real hard time with her recovery, and thanks only to the kindness of strangers was she able to walk in her own graduation Saturday. She appeared on Channel 3 on Tuesday night, and then Friday was in the Plain Dealer. Marcia is still a member of the NEOCH Board of Trustees, and helps out whenever she can.
The most amazing part of this story is that Marcia Bufford has a bullet lodged at the base of her skull and the State of Ohio has determined that she is not disabled. How can you get shot in the face and walk with a cane and yet not be disabled? The system for determining disability is broken and needs to be fixed. They seem to turn everyone down and force them to hire an attorney to get the scraps offered to disabled people in America. It is a disgrace to treat fragile populations like this, and make them grovel for a small check that does not cover fair market rent anywhere in the country.
Update: There was an article in the Akron Beacon Journal about the need for more judges to look at all the backlog on cases last week. I missed it, but here is the link.
The Bush's Car Salesman Speaks
This morning on Weekend Edition with Scott Simon, he interviewed Phillip Mangano who heads up the federal Interagency Council on Homelessness. Mangano is the snake oil salesman for the Bush administration--putting a positive face on domestic policy toward homeless people. He sounds so sincere and so determined, but it is a house of cards. As I have said before, there is no way to address homelessness in America while cutting funds to Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher program. It is fake to push these 10 year plans while making families, youth and the unemployed the next long term homeless in America with budget cuts to the housing programs. These guys will all be long gone when the cities discover these 10 year plans don't work and have not solved homelessness. How about we solve homelessness for everyone living in the United States instead of pitting one population against another?
Brian
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
Marcia Bufford Update
In case you missed it Andrea Simakis had a very good story/summary/update on how Marcia Bufford has fared since the shooting in 2006 that appeared in yesterday's Plain Dealer. We had regular blog updates last year about Bufford here and here and here. I really like Andrea's writing, and she weaves a very good story with her profile of Marcia. Anyway, Marcia has struggled with poverty, and the inability to find a job that does not require her to be on her feet. She has struggled paying her bills and complete her school. She has had a real hard time with her recovery, and thanks only to the kindness of strangers was she able to walk in her own graduation Saturday. She appeared on Channel 3 on Tuesday night, and then Friday was in the Plain Dealer. Marcia is still a member of the NEOCH Board of Trustees, and helps out whenever she can.
The most amazing part of this story is that Marcia Bufford has a bullet lodged at the base of her skull and the State of Ohio has determined that she is not disabled. How can you get shot in the face and walk with a cane and yet not be disabled? The system for determining disability is broken and needs to be fixed. They seem to turn everyone down and force them to hire an attorney to get the scraps offered to disabled people in America. It is a disgrace to treat fragile populations like this, and make them grovel for a small check that does not cover fair market rent anywhere in the country.
Update: There was an article in the Akron Beacon Journal about the need for more judges to look at all the backlog on cases last week. I missed it, but here is the link.
The Bush's Car Salesman Speaks
This morning on Weekend Edition with Scott Simon, he interviewed Phillip Mangano who heads up the federal Interagency Council on Homelessness. Mangano is the snake oil salesman for the Bush administration--putting a positive face on domestic policy toward homeless people. He sounds so sincere and so determined, but it is a house of cards. As I have said before, there is no way to address homelessness in America while cutting funds to Public Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher program. It is fake to push these 10 year plans while making families, youth and the unemployed the next long term homeless in America with budget cuts to the housing programs. These guys will all be long gone when the cities discover these 10 year plans don't work and have not solved homelessness. How about we solve homelessness for everyone living in the United States instead of pitting one population against another?
Brian
Posts by Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless staff and Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)