On Stealing Cereal and Second Chances

Yesterday, a Florida homeless man with 50 prior convictions was sentenced to 15 years in prison for stealing a box of cereal and jug of milk. At the same time, another man in St. Paul, Minnesota - formerly in prison and on the streets himself - is learning television production skills through a job training program. The moral of the story? Helping the homeless isn't just a moral obligation, it's a smart financial move.

As if the moral obligation to help those without a home isn't enough, today we're reminded of another important reason we all have an interest in helping the homeless thanks to two seemingly unrelated stories.

First, a homeless man with a history of alcoholism was sentenced to 15 years in prison yesterday for stealing a box of Lucky Charms and a jug of milk. Mark Anthony Griffin received this hefty sentence because of his status as a "prison release reoffender." He had over 50 prior convictions - mostly misdemeanor charges ranging from public intoxication to trespassing. Griffin's brother, an elementary school principal, asked the court to help his brother treat his long-term alcoholism rather than sending him to prison, according to The Leger.  "He needs help," said Joseph Griffin, an elementary school principal. "If he gets the help, he won't be in court."

The reaction to this story has resoundingly been disbelief ("15 years for stealing cereal!?") and anger over the criminal justice system costs this man has accumulated over the years. Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but assuming Mr. Griffin is your average chronically homeless person, then the costs of his criminal justice run-ins are not even the beginning of it.

We can assume that Mr. Griffin stayed in a homeless shelter from time to time ($). We can assume that, now and then, he checked into the emergency room for medical treatment ($$). We can assume he had a case manager ($), received free meals ($), and had other interactions with law enforcement where he was not arrested ($).

Suffice to say, we can assume that Mr. Griffin's homelessness has cost his community a great deal financially over the years. Many studies from across the country have documented the average costs a chronically homeless person racks up annually (Portland, Oregon, for example, found that each of their 35 chronically homeless individuals was costing the city $42K each in public resources each year... yikes!).

Yes, treatment would be a better option than jail at this point. But providing housing combined with supportive services (including alcohol treatment) the moment he hit the streets would have been an even better option.

Now, let's jump north to St. Paul, Minnesota. Today, CNN featured the story of a prisoner who was discharged into homelessness. Rather than succumbing to life on the streets, he was given the chance to work and learn a new marketable skill thanks to a local cable news program. In addition to reporting about homelessness issues, it teaches formerly homeless folks about the world of TV production.

Ron Kennebrew, the man featured in the CNN article, summed it up best when he said homelessness can be one of two things: "a place in despair or ... a slingshot to opportunity." This is true for both the individuals who experience homelessness, and the communities who must choose how to treat its homeless population.

Two men, two stories that began very similarly, two totally different endings. Is your community treating your homeless population like serial criminals? Or are you harnessing their potential - while simultaneously meeting basic needs - for the mutual benefit of all?

Image from The Ledger.

Shannon Moriarty has worked in various homeless shelters and service organizations around the country. She is a graduate student studying housing and urban policy at Tufts University.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Real Stories: Meet Guy
NEXT STORY:
Sallie Mae Blinks!

COMMENTS (8)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.