by Rev. Andy on Tuesday, July 27th, 2010, Filed Under Rev Andy's Blog, You Are The Mission | View Comments
I believe that advocates for people experiencing homelessness have made a big mistake in taking sides in the Housing First struggle, pushing for an either/or approach to responding to and ending homelessness in the U.S.
This news article from Columbia, South Carolina also spells out the problem:
Columbia Phasing Out Backing of Homeless Project
By ADAM BEAM, McClatchy Newspapers
COLUMBIA, S.C. – Columbia is phasing out its support for Housing First, the program that places the chronically homeless into permanent housing scattered throughout the city.
The program, which began in 2007, is operated by the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the Columbia Housing Authority. Its contract expired in June but was renewed for another year.
But with a shrinking budget, council members have asked Housing First officials to begin looking elsewhere for the $247,166 it takes to run the program.
Housing First was a shift in the city’s homeless strategy, focusing on placing the homeless in private, permanent housing around the city instead of concentrating all of its homeless services on one comprehensive shelter.
But Housing First targets the chronically homeless, defined by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development as people who have been continuously homeless for a year or more or who have had four instances of homelessness in the past three years. It does not serve the larger temporary homeless population – folks who find themselves suddenly homeless after a job loss or an accident.
For that reason, the city has begun shifting its money back to a homeless shelter-based approach.
It continues to operate a $500,000 winter homeless shelter and has agreed to contribute $250,000 to the Midlands Housing Alliance, which is building an $11.7 million homeless center. Council members say they can no longer afford the money it takes to place Housing First’s clients into permanent housing.
“We’d love to, but you can’t serve as many people with Housing First,” Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine said. “We still have an obligation to provide the winter shelter.”
While Housing First is expensive, it avoids one of the major pitfalls of homeless services by not having a homeless shelter. Instead, clients are placed in apartments evenly divided among the city’s four council districts. That’s a big selling point for local residents, who often oppose homeless shelters near their neighborhoods.
Most homeless services operate by first providing homeless people with job training, health care and mental health counseling before the ultimate goal of transferring them to permanent housing. But Housing First is the opposite, providing the permanent housing first, followed by the other services.
“We actually find that by providing housing first, you end up with people being clean and sober and people with employment and people with income and people with health care,” said David Parker, University of South Carolina’s director of research and assistant professor at the Department of Medicine who runs the Housing First program.
Since its inception, Housing First has placed 54 people into permanent housing. Of the 54, the average time they were homeless is eight years, Parker said.
The Columbia Housing Authority works to place the clients into permanent housing and train them on how to live in a house.
“The first person we moved in was 15 years on the streets. He doesn’t know how to clean an oven,” said Nancy Stoudenmire with the Columbia Housing Authority. Currently, the program has 20 people in apartments throughout the city. Thirteen of them are paying a portion of the rent, Stoudenmire said.
Eight clients have successfully transitioned out of the program into independent housing, Parker said. They include a woman whose Housing First apartment was originally furnished by another local nonprofit organization.
“She was so grateful to that nonprofit for (buying the furniture) – she basically made a donation that would cover furniture for somebody else’s apartment,” Parker said. “We get to see a completely different side of homeless people than is often publicized.”
As for the future of the program, Parker and Stoudenmire say they are trying to find grant money to keep it going, including pursuing funding from the Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program.
If it is able to survive, Parker said Housing First also would help out other homeless service providers in the area.
Read more here.
————————————————————————————–
I recently saw an opportunity for HOME funds to come down from the Federal Government to LA County, and in the description of the funding it mandated that these funds can only be used for Permanent Housing Opportunities.
At a time when we are facing the biggest need ever, and I mean the biggest need in the history of Union Rescue Mission’s 119 years, even bigger than the Great Depression, this restrictive description of the funding was difficult to hear. Let me first describe the need. In 1933, there were 1.2 million people residing in L.A., and URM fed 133,000 meals. Last year, there were 3.6 million people in the City of Angels, and we fed 1.25 million meals! That is a 3 fold proportionate increase in need and services, and we are just 1 of many missions/shelters today, rather than being one of the only ones as we were in 1933!
We ourselves are struggling with how to divide our resources. Do we move all of our resources to our Hope Gardens Family Center or keep all of the resources at our downtown URM emergency response? Do we let public officials cry out Housing First only, move all resources to provide permanent supportive housing for the 20% of people experiencing homelessness who are the most chronically homeless and away from the 80% who are episodically experiencing homelessness or who are experiencing homelessness for the first time?
It may be an easy public policy decision to move all of the resources to Housing First only, but when you are on the ground, facing a tsunami of families with children, including one little 4 year old guy named Dorian, who is struggling with a terminal illness, it is a bit more difficult to make the decision to close the shelters/emergency responses down and move the resources to building only a few permanent housing units compared to the vast need. It is like picking a few drowning victims out of an ocean full of need.
If the full truth be known, in that 80% of people experiencing homelessness, there are many who, if their needs go unmet and they are denied emergency services, will in fact end up as the chronic homeless people of tomorrow. Studies show that the adults experiencing chronic homelessness today were the children who experienced homelessness and poverty a generation ago. They were sick twice as often, their self-esteem was hurt, they fell behind in school, they were in and out of foster care, and they became our chronically homeless people. That means that our children today experiencing homelessness will be our chronic homeless adults of the future, unless we quit the either/or approach and take a common sense, aggressive Both And approach like Union Rescue Mission’s own You Are The Mission 10 Step Initiative to end homelessness.
As Columbia, South Carolina realized, you can’t turn your back on the multitudes to help a few, but I believe that unlike Columbia, our decision needs to be to step up and provide the much needed help of permanent supportive housing for the few, while still doing everything we can to address the needs of many, and not let one precious human being experience the brutality of life on the streets.
To read more about this subject, check out this article by Ralph Da Costa Nunez, “One Size Does Not Fit All”
As always, I welcome and appreciate your feedback.
Blessings,
by Rev. Andy on Tuesday, July 13th, 2010, Filed Under Rev Andy's Blog, You Are The Mission | View Comments
A few weeks ago on this blog I explored the options of having people experiencing homelessness pay part of their own way when they come into a Mission or agency for assistance.
I am going to reprint the former blog, share the comments, and after that, I am going to share how you all helped us arrive at what I believe and hope is an excellent path! Thank you!
There has been some controversy over guests paying a fee for services, both nearby on Skid Row and in New York City. The controversy arose when a local group in LA bought a building, and after a few months began offering a cot and a place to sleep for $125.00 per month. Some advocates for people experiencing homelessness cried out about the fee, but also in regards to the fact that only the cot and case management was offered, and that there were no shower services or regular food program to go along with the cot.
In New York City a bigger storm arose over the City of New York carrying out a Client Contribution Program, a pilot program to charge guests with an adequate income a gradually growing fee to both sustain the shelter program and to develop responsible choices among the guests. I have posted the link below:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-08-21/news/bloomberg-charges-the-homeless-rent/
“Dusting off an idea dating back to the Giuliani era, the Bloomberg administration has quietly started charging rent to homeless people who stay in emergency city shelters, the Voice has learned.
With no fanfare, Bloomberg officials in June began charging residents of at least four Brooklyn shelters up to 30 percent of their income, records obtained by the Voice show. People who don’t pay could be kicked out of the shelter, the documents show.
Eric Deutsch, a spokesman for the Department of Homeless Services, tells the Voice that the so-called Client Contribution Program is a “very small” pilot program for people with a significant amount of income in the shelter. “We’re trying a variety of new strategies to help families and individuals move towards permanency and into their own homes,” he said.
According to Deutsch, the first month at the shelter is free, with fees rising from 10 percent in the second month to 30 percent in the fourth month. Deutsch said the money goes into a pool that “clients” can draw from when they leave the shelter. But shelter residents say a number of people have already refused to pay the rent fee because they can’t afford it, and because the city hasn’t offered any additional rights or benefits in return.”
At the Rescue Mission I ran from 1986 to 1990 in Des Moines, Iowa, we had a similar practice. The Door of Faith Mission was established by George Holloway, a man who had a 3rd grade education, spent 37 years on the road without a home, going from shelter to shelter, until he had his life transformed right here at Union Rescue Mission, I believe. He returned to Des Moines, Iowa, with a philosophy of running mission’s differently:
- He made it welcoming for the entire day, instead of making people line up at night to come in for a meal and a bed
- He fed the men well so they could feel good, go out and work, and get help avoiding the temptations of drugs and alcohol
- He required sobriety from those who lived at the Mission because it is difficult to stay sober when surrounded by the site and smell of alcohol
- He required the men to work and pay their own way, because people feel better about themselves when they work, and pay their own way. It affirms their dignity, teaches responsibility, prepares them for paying rent when they move, and it provided 1/3 of the needed income for operating the shelter. The rest of the income came from churches and individuals. The first 3 days were free of charge or paid by the County, subsequently the next 30 day fee was $6.00 per day, then $7.00 per day, and finally $8.00 per day to prepare the men to pay rent.
In effect, I learned everything I know about properly running a Rescue Mission not from my more than 15 years in colleges, universities and seminaries, but almost entirely from a man with a 3rd grade education.
I came to Union Rescue Mission with this philosophy intact, but I have not implemented all of the components of this philosophy as of yet. I was reminded of George Holloway’s teachings the other day, when a front line staff mention that some guests residing free at Union Rescue Mission have an income of $1,000 and some an income of $2,000 and that it is difficult to watch someone stay free, eat free, and irresponsibly fritter away huge sums of money in the first few days only to be completely broke the rest of the month, while our worker has suffered 2 pay decreases and responsibly struggles to make ends meet.
I’d like to start a dialogue and get your thoughts on this dilemma. What do you think? Should Mission guests pay a fee to learn responsibility, prepare for paying rent, and help sustain the Mission’s operating costs during such a challenging time? Thanks for weighing in!
19 Responses to “Resources, Responsibilities and Rescue Missions”
- Myles Rose says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm
When this is shared via the facebook button the link does not direct to this page, something breaks. Perhaps it is just a timing issue?
- Robin Vestal says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm
It’s tricky; If you decide to charge rent you might have a system where a portion is set aside to help people save to get into housing.
Obviously you don’t want to charge someone who has no source of income but everyone should contribute to their own well being so I dont’ think it’s completely unreasonable for the working homeless.
- Andy Bales says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Thank you, Myles. I have forwarded your alert! I appreciate the help. Robin, thank you for sharing your perspective. I also believe a savings plan is important. I really appreciate you weighing in!
- Tweets that mention Resources, Responsibilities and Rescue Mission’s | Union Rescue Mission — Topsy.com says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rev. Andy Bales, Dave Mahanes and Union Rescue Mission, Myles Rose. Myles Rose said: RT @abales: RT @urm Resources, Responsibilities and Rescue Mission’s http://bit.ly/cOPgDk [...]
- Kristin says:
April 29, 2010 at 6:49 pm
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether or not to charge a fee for mission guests. I am in full disagreement with the idea that mission guests pay a fee for their stay. That defeats the purpose of the many hardworking families and adults who stay at the mission in hopes of saving enough money to one day leave and live independently. What about the homeless who do not have jobs? They will have to continue to sleep on the cold cement because they don’t have the means to stay in a shelter that was originally built to support them? I have been donating to the mission for years and will no longer support the mission both financially and with hard goods if the mission decides to switch over to the philosophy of “paying rent.”
- Andy Bales says:
April 29, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Thank you, Kristin. I really appreciate you speaking up! Thanks for taking the time and for sharing your passionate response!
- Kristin says:
April 29, 2010 at 9:44 pm
You’re so welcome Andy. I truly appreciate what you are doing for our community. You are making such a difference in so many peoples lives.
- Roddy Rose says:
April 30, 2010 at 10:25 am
Speaking as someone who has benefited the from the Rescue Mission, I believe that there must be some accountability on the part of those who have an income of 1000. As an apprentice in the internet cafe I see the same faces day after day and month after month. It becomes grievous seeing people get a check on the first of the month, then they are broke after a week or so. Some of the men were at one time in the program but left on their own, only to come back busted and disgusted. Right in front of them is an opportunity to get help(including managing their money. The whole point is that unless one surrenders they will continue on the same cycle and get the same results which unfortunately will be negative results..
I know because that used to be me until I surrendered.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!!!
- Andy Bales says:
April 30, 2010 at 10:34 am
Thank you, Rod and all. This dialogue is very helpful. Wow!
- Michael Bond says:
April 30, 2010 at 9:09 pm
When I heard about the organization charging $125/month, I was told the price included only a cot with a dirty blanket at night and no bathroom facilities of any kind. People were being told to go across the street to the Midnight if they felt the urge at night. What I was told sounded like a total ripoff of relatively defenseless people; it also sounded illegal to me. Of course, if the URM charged people, facilities would be provided and I assume meals as well, so the URM charging doesn’t bother me. Instead, it seems more like a tactical decision: will it help or hurt in the struggle to get people off the streets permanently? And it sounds like it may deserve a trial to see whether it works.
- Andy Bales says:
May 1, 2010 at 8:33 am
Thank you for sharing Michael. This input is all very helpful. I hope more people weigh in with diverse views. Blessings
- Mary Setterholm says:
May 2, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Hi Rev Andy. Perhaps the naming of the program is critical as it should reflect a covenant perspective rather than ‘taking from’? ‘Free rent’ should not be interpreted as a program of entitlement if, for a season, the service of ‘free rent’ saved a life. That said, at some point, dignity is not realized if one side does all the work: the binary system of elitism/impoverished would seem to be re-inscribed or replicated in an act of well meaning charity. it seems the plan of savings and money management, similar to debtors anonymous might work well.
been there, on the underside, so i speak from continued recovery. blessings!
- Andy Bales says:
May 2, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Mary, your thoughts are powerful and right on. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Bless you!
- steven varga says:
May 4, 2010 at 3:51 pm
i appreciate everything the mission has ever done for me thank you
- Terrence says:
May 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I feel that guests who can afford to contribute for their Services should do so. It will help them gain self-respect and In turn earn the respect of others.
- Jerry Thacker says:
May 7, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Hello Reverend Randy Bales:
First of all, I would like to thank the Union Rescue Mission for letting me welcome Jesus Christ into my life and saving it more than once! The Union Rescue Mission has always been available when I needed help the most! Thank you!
Many homeless people want to work, but the self-image they carry within themselves does not allow them to have the confidence that is required in getting a job these days. If the mission could show proof that they actually found a job and walked the person in need to the job site for his or her first day and then the person said that they would rather not work, then there is a possibility that I could see your point. Three days to get a job? Some people need three days to let their feet heal?
I am just writing you this letter to ad my voice on this matter. I already know how qualified the Union Rescue Mission’s staff (all great people) are. I even know that you have already considered the options that I mentioned, but I need pratice in helping others.
Thank you,
Jerry Thacker
yarnwinters@yahoo.com
Pacific Standard Time
- Benjamin says:
May 11, 2010 at 9:57 am
30 percent to the Mission, 30 percent to their savings account and 40 percent in there pocket. Most important, they’re getting three meals, showers, beds, medical, dental and counseling for that 30 percent.
- Akiliah Manuel Mills says:
May 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I lean towards the percentage system Benjamin suggested. A “Program Fee” implies that case management, housing advocacy and life skills training will be offered. These are great services but require staff. I am curious if the mission will hire ample staff, particularly for the men to ensure case management for guests can be accomplished and effective? If so, I see no hindrance. If not, I think it should be called “rent”.
- Brenda Mitchell says:
May 24, 2010 at 11:11 am
I propose that those individuals who do have income contribute (at a small percentage of their income, even if it is 10%) to the mission, as a matter of assisting to keep the resources of the mission available for all who desperately need its services. The small contributions from the many would be a way of acting in solidarity with those who could not contribute and could also work in concert with a savings plan to be fully accessed at the time of an individual’s departure. Those who are experiencing homelessness are often the most “in touch” and compassionate with others in the same difficult circumstances, and often wish to assist, in my experience.
First, let me say a huge “Thank You!” to all who read this blog and had the courage and took the time to weigh in! You really helped us. Everyone’s opinions helped shape a new policy for us, especially former guests’ opinions. We met with Myles, General Jeff, and Don Garza as well, and that was an amazing and enlightening meeting. We also spoke to our guests here.
I have to admit that one of the comments above that really spoke to my heart was Mary’s, “Hi Rev Andy. Perhaps the naming of the program is critical as it should reflect a covenant perspective rather than ‘taking from’?”
This, as well as the meeting with General Jeff, Don Garza, Myles Rose, and my past experience at the Door of Faith in Des Moines, Iowa, and our staffs and guests’ collective wisdom and experience, helped us develop a new program, all voluntary rather than mandated, called Gateway Transitional Program.
Initially limited to 25 men and 25 women, our Gateway Transitional Program is designed to bridge the gap between our Emergency Guest Program and our 12-18 month Life Transformation Programs. Features and benefits include:
- A 6-month covenant relationship with a commitment to sobriety.
- Attendance of classes in money management, job interviewing and job preparation, conflict resolution, assertiveness and time management.
- Group activities and motivational rallies specifically for Gateway Program participants.
- A dedicated bed in our men’s or women’s dorm complete with a footlocker for valuables.
- Hours/curfew will be tailored to the specific needs of each participant, and their bunk area will be considered their space and they will be allowed to rest or study as they can.
- Participants will contribute $210 per month to Union Rescue Mission. $60.00 of this contribution will be placed in their own personal savings account. The remaining $150 fee will be used to offset the cost of the Gateway Transitional Program.
Our guests are excited about this new opportunity to move out of the cycle of homelessness, and we are launching this month! Thanks for taking time to consider, for weighing in, and for truly helping us shape a program that really is a mutual covenant to help our guests and our Mission. Bless you! Andy B.
