Seeing Is Believing; Can America Care About the Unhoused?

I'd like to believe. This week's release of Opening Doors, the government's plan to end homelessness, offers a glimmer of hope. But why do I feel like Charlie Brown as he trustingly races to kick the football that Lucy deceptively holds? Argh.

The Obama administration presented this desperately needed new plan to house the un-housed Tuesday. Many capable, well-intentioned people contributed worthy ideas. On the surface it offers a welcome new approach to putting a roof over heads of not only those "chronically" homeless (the stereotyped pariahs of urban communities, the unkempt, addicted men that bother shopkeepers and shoppers alike). The plan begins to recognize families and teens without housing.

Gosh, some of us have been pointing out the shortcomings of HUD's previous plans to end homelessness, this century's strategic but flawed approach to rid our streets of the vermin, er, chronically homeless, from the git-go. And sure, I'd like to embrace this new plan, but a few concerns remain:

1. Flawed starting point. The feds never got the scope of homelessness right. Wanting to keep the number manageable (like the gallons of crude oil spewing into the Gulf) it under-counted by limiting the definition of homeless to those served by HUD-funded shelters or counted in the well-intentioned but doomed-to-fail "point in time" counts. Testifying to a Senate subcommittee (pdf), Nan Roman, the often-quoted head of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, pointed out the grim (2007) reality, "... between 2.4 million and 10.5 million individuals are doubled up and living below the poverty line .... If this group were counted as homeless, we would have somewhere between four and 15 times as many people eligible for homeless assistance as we currently have," far more than the 664,414 in HUD's 2009 report to Congress (pdf).
2. Entrenched social challenges. All of us have bad habits. People trying to survive on the fringes of society have, in some cases, tarnished their records by engaging in criminal activities, mostly non-violent, but enough to keep them from receiving government assistance. Why can the rich get away with criminal behavior and the poor can’t? Try to get government assistance when you have a criminal history. It's an unaddressed barrier to self-sufficiency.
3. Nontraditional family structures. The morality police, our federal government, have historically hesitated to assist families (pdf) who haven't followed the rules — marriage. Families with different sperm donors still have difficulty attaining needed support.
4. Addictions and behavioral issues. It's one thing to condemn people who self-medicate. It's another to provide the help and long-term support needed to help them find a better way of coping. If you're poor (and uninsured) with a drug and/or alcohol problem, you're screwed.
5. Military families. While assisting returning veterans was mentioned in this plan, too little attention is being paid to military families who are being destroyed.

Then we have the elephant in the middle of the living room: poverty (pdf). This nation, including beleaguered states and local governments, must acknowledge that we're a country of rich and poor, and accept that the growing number of impoverished people need food, shelter and access to health care. At the under-reported U.S. Social Forum in Detroit this week, solutions were developed. You can't pretend to care for homeless families while not making it possible for income-challenged families to get and keep their housing. Is that possible during this unfolding economic crisis?

Seems to me that our government wants to get it right. Oh, that's me and Charlie Brown wanting to kick the football Lucy holds again.

Photo credit: Diane Nilan