Detroit effort puts priority on ending homelessness...

[Vic01]

"The city is launching a first-of-its-kind effort to address chronic homelessness in the wake of a "tent city" encampment on east Jefferson this winter that took months to disband.Tent city residents hunkered down in sub-zero temperatures, lending an urgency to the new initiative that officials say will focus on improving coordination and permanent supportive housing opportunities for the chronically homeless.

Homeless advocates involved in the partnership hope it results in a stronger emphasis on providing housing first and supportive services later, as needed.

At the same time, grant funding is being earmarked for two service agencies to reach out to homeless people in the neighborhoods, not just Detroit's downtown.

"We're hoping that together we'll come up with a plan, metrics and goals that we're all standing behind later this year," said Arthur Jemison, director of the city's Housing and Revitalization Department.

Mayor Mike Duggan tapped Jemison to pull together the working group of aid agencies. The member organizations are slated to deliver findings and recommendations to Duggan in June."

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ness/27158867/

[Mzsuzuki]

i hope the city looks into including churches in this initiative. Instead of each church doing its own thing....we need some collaboration.....combining resources, ideas and manpower.

[Wesley Mouch]

Homelessness is rarely just about housing. It runs with mental illness, drugs, unemployment.

I'm glad to see that the idea here is to focus on the actual shelter. Not that the other issues aren't crucial, but they shouldn't get in the way of shelter. You can't fix the others if people freeze to death.

Shelter is certainly not hard to do -- except that we have so many rules that it becomes hard. Must use certain contractors, must pay certain wages, must provide certain amenities to the resident [[say elevators), must provide a private room... and so on. Loftier goals can be debated, but a roof, bathrooms, water, heat, and decent cot are all that's essential. The rest is driven by do-gooders and bureaucracy that actually hurt the homeless.

My solution? 1) Simple shelters - eliminate the luxuries that make it hard and expensive to build, 2) Fix deinstitutionalized mental health [[were institutions worse than what we have now?), 3) Eliminate the oppressive minimum wage laws that make it impossible to hire the truly needy, and instead encourage you to hire more qualified people instead. [[You all know that's why Unions like the minimum wage, don't you? Its not because most minimum wage workers are in families below the poverty line -- they aren't. Its because higher wages sound good, and protect union workers from unskilled but eager workers from taking their jobs. You don't suppose AFSCME thinks we should hire the homeless to cut grass in city parks, do you?)

[emu steve]

I agree with the first two paragraphs above, but wonder about the rest.

One of the best, I think, ecumenical organizations in the nation is SOME, in Washington, D.C. They work on the model of shelter, health care, education and training, etc. Very holistic. I think they can be a case study of a model which works. [The D.C. run program is considered a mess.]

I donate to both SOME in D.C. and a like charity in Detroit.

Below is a link where SOME describes what they do and their campaign for a new facility which I believe will occupy an entire block near a subway station in N.E. Washington, D.C.

I believe they are very close on raising the necessary funds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElNLoJRuq-U

[Wesley Mouch]

I agree with the first two paragraphs above, but wonder about the rest.

One of the best, I think, ecumenical organizations in the nation is SOME, in Washington, D.C. They work on the model of shelter, health care, education and training, etc. Very holistic. I think they can be a case study of a model which works. [The D.C. run program is considered a mess.]

I donate to both SOME in D.C. and a like charity in Detroit.

Below is a link where SOME describes what they do and their campaign for a new facility which I believe will occupy an entire block near a subway station in N.E. Washington, D.C.

I believe they are very close on raising the necessary funds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElNLoJRuq-U

Great video. Why is the DC program a 'mess'?

Sorry I got carried away in my post. Its just hard for me to shut up when people who want to do good end up harming our most vulnerable citizens by buying into harmful programs, rules, and initiatives that feel good, but aren't.

[emu steve]

Great video. Why is the DC program a 'mess'?

Sorry I got carried away in my post. Its just hard for me to shut up when people who want to do good end up harming our most vulnerable citizens by buying into harmful programs, rules, and initiatives that feel good, but aren't.

D.C.'s government program uses, among other places, I believe the old D.C. General Hospital and it is really bad shape. I don't know if the problems are mostly the facility isn't appropriate for a homeless shelter or problems administering it. Some photos I've seen are not good.

What SOME does is pretty amazing given that they are a private, ecumenical organization.

The project which is part of the video isn't cheap, almost 100M, with a lot of funding sources.

What is really good is that it will house families and obviously families are the most vulnerable.

That new building 'is a start' but it will make a HUGE impact of those who will use it. To me, there won't be reasons for the facility not to be successful. If this doesn't work, what would????

It is so, so, so much different then warehousing people who have no place to life.

[Wesley Mouch]

D.C.'s government program uses, among other places, I believe the old D.C. General Hospital and it is really bad shape. I don't know if the problems are mostly the facility isn't appropriate for a homeless shelter or problems administering it. Some photos I've seen are not good.

What SOME does is pretty amazing given that they are a private, ecumenical organization.

The project which is part of the video isn't cheap, almost 100M, with a lot of funding sources.

What is really good is that it will house families and obviously families are the most vulnerable.

That new building 'is a start' but it will make a HUGE impact of those who will use it. To me, there won't be reasons for the facility not to be successful. If this doesn't work, what would????

It is so, so, so much different then warehousing people who have no place to life.

Thanks. Its great to see that the door isn't closed to innovative NGO solutions.

[hybridy]

http://dailyreporter.com/2014/02/26/...help-homeless/

[emu steve]

Thanks. Its great to see that the door isn't closed to innovative NGO solutions.

SOME is a true success story. They have a number of residential places, etc. etc. but they have excellent community support especially in the area of medical, dental, etc.

The homeless may be given a 'free lunch' but ending homelessness is hardly a free lunch. It is very, very expensive as the homeless tend to have high medical, dental, mental, etc. needs. I doubt a Band-Aid approach would do much other then alleviate hunger and cold during the winter.

One of my other D.C. charities is a residential program for unwed mothers and their children. Again, another very, very worthwhile endeavor but not cheap.

I guess the bottom line is: If they do what they intend to do, then the benefit to society is great.

[ABetterDetroit]

3) Eliminate the oppressive minimum wage laws that make it impossible to hire the truly needy, and instead encourage you to hire more qualified people instead. [[You all know that's why Unions like the minimum wage, don't you? Its not because most minimum wage workers are in families below the poverty line -- they aren't. Its because higher wages sound good, and protect union workers from unskilled but eager workers from taking their jobs. You don't suppose AFSCME thinks we should hire the homeless to cut grass in city parks, do you?)

One little problem with this idea that you somehow seem to have missed. It's way too late. Damn near every blade of grass in America is already being cut by a 2nd or 3rd world legal or illegal immigrant at a low wage. Since they make very little with no benifits you pay for all their health care. Next up is they really can't afford to pay taxes because of all the children they have been having on your dime so you pay for that too. Schools, law enforcement, public housing, help with the utilities etc. Of course they have a lot of family back home that would like to come here also to be with them but they may be too old or young to cut grass so you pay for them as well -- social security, welfare, bridge cards etc. I guess since that you didn't notice that low wage grass cutters are already dinging you pretty good, I might point out that this has happened to a ton of other job fields as well like cleaning people, roofers, other construction fields, kitchen work, child care. It really is a long list. While you have been busy blaming unions for money problems the line has been getting pretty long to get in your wallet from low wage workers. You propose more of this as a solution? Good thing you can afford it because it's getting expensive quickly.

[sumas]

Our best effort is to help people in temporary distress by providing housing. Have one in house now. No interest in renting but have plenty of rooms. We are careful in whom we help.

[Dan Wesson]

The homeless have always been with us. There but for the grace of God, luck, opportunity, ambition, health and perseverance go I.

[sumas]

There but for the grace of God go I. Good comment, mostly we have lived well, 2 times things went sour. I truely understand the need for temp assistance. We do what can to assist those who need help and a hand up

[Dan Wesson]

Compassion is something I'm always having to work at. I'm a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps kinda guy".

I have seen too many that had a hand in their own unpleasant circumstances.

I used to be more liberal about the plight of strangers. Now it's all about the health, safety and welfare of my wife, son, daughter and their family’s.

Also a noble cause indeed.

[sumas]

Family should always be first.

[emu steve]

Compassion is something I'm always having to work at. I'm a "pull yourself up by the bootstraps kinda guy".

I have seen too many that had a hand in their own unpleasant circumstances.

I used to be more liberal about the plight of strangers. Now it's all about the health, safety and welfare of my wife, son, daughter and their family’s.

Also a noble cause indeed.

I'm going to embellish my post with some current thoughts, largely based on Pope Francis and the thoughts of a local Catholic Priest.

Everyone talks about mercy, but mercy is really seeking 'reduced punishment for transgressions' be it a child at home, a speeder apprehended by a policeman, a felon facing a judge, etc.

The better word is 'compassion' which includes care, concern, empathy, etc. for another person or group of persons, e.g., the homeless, those suffering with illness, the quake victims in Nepal, etc.

One of my life changing experiences was a visit, with a group, to what was really an orphanage. We all 'were assigned' children [[orphans). Mine was an almost two year old in a stroller; she could not walk and join the other children [[at play at the Chuckie Cheeze.) I asked the nun, why? "We think she has cerebral palsy." An orphan with CP and yes, the child had zero culpability for her condition. I couldn't even blame her as I might an alcoholic...

I don't think I was ever the same... [[this happened almost 30 years ago). On an 'empathy' moment scale, it was a life long lasting '10'.

[ddaydetroit]

Is there a way to help people that have had a bad break and didnt have family or friends to fall back on in a time of need and not the drug/alcohol addict who has not changed his ways ? I'm sorry but I like to know how my hard earned pay is being spent and on who when I donate to anything.

[RaumVogel]

Is there a way to help people that have had a bad break and didnt have family or friends to fall back on in a time of need and not the drug/alcohol addict who has not changed his ways ? I'm sorry but I like to know how my hard earned pay is being spent and on who when I donate to anything.

Like stated previously,if there were more work, we would have less drug/alcohol addicts.
We as a society have to start dealing with the fact that people need an income despite the fact of automation/jobs going overseas/immigrants coming here.

[Wesley Mouch]

Is there a way to help people that have had a bad break and didnt have family or friends to fall back on in a time of need and not the drug/alcohol addict who has not changed his ways ? I'm sorry but I like to know how my hard earned pay is being spent and on who when I donate to anything.

Contribute to your Church. Vote against those who want to increase the government social safety net.

I do think the government has a role to play, but it should be the smallest possible role. Social Security, socialized health care to name just a few. But it is pretty clear to me that beyond that the government is the wrong tool to address social ills.

Look at the Catholic Church. By and large, they run excellent programs that provide not just cash, but help in many ways. The Capuchin Soup Kitchen is a fine example. http://www.cskdetroit.org/

[Scottathew]

Some people are homeless merely because of the fact that someone won't give them a home. Those folks will always be homeless. They're mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or have some other kind of issue. Other than free housing, those folks can't be fixed.

We need to concentrate our efforts on folks that don't want to be homeless, folks that want to be employed, folks that want to battle drug addiction, etc...

Eliminating homelessness simply isn't achievable, but we can reduce it and change it for those that want to be helped.

[emu steve]

Some people are homeless merely because of the fact that someone won't give them a home. Those folks will always be homeless. They're mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or have some other kind of issue. Other than free housing, those folks can't be fixed.

We need to concentrate our efforts on folks that don't want to be homeless, folks that want to be employed, folks that want to battle drug addiction, etc...

Eliminating homelessness simply isn't achievable, but we can reduce it and change it for those that want to be helped.

I'm pretty well with you on this:

Knowing what we know on things like intelligence, there are going to be a few percent who are retarded. A few percent who are mentally ill. A few percent with addictions.

Sometimes I'm surprised the homeless problem is worse, but I think I know why: Many end up in jail so instead of being homeless due to mental illness, addictions, etc. They eventually become part of the criminal justice system.

The mentally ill may be involved in violence. The addict in theft and other crimes.

Our mental health system is a total mess despite the presence of meds which could help a lot of people [[that wasn't true 50 years ago).

I bet there are a lot of folks with IQs of say 70 or 75, who could also be diagnosed as schizophrenic out there...

[Wesley Mouch]

...Our mental health system is a total mess despite the presence of meds which could help a lot of people [[that wasn't true 50 years ago)....

You cite the criminalization of everything, and I presume this greatly means drugs. OK. So that's one problem. Is that the only problem? I should think not.

Then why are the problems seemingly so much greater today than they were 50 years ago -- when you'd think we have the tools to do so much better?

[emu steve]

You cite the criminalization of everything, and I presume this greatly means drugs. OK. So that's one problem. Is that the only problem? I should think not.

Then why are the problems seemingly so much greater today than they were 50 years ago -- when you'd think we have the tools to do so much better?

Are they? Things have gotten better in the last 50 years. Poverty is down 40% according to President Obama. Meet The Press had a graphic that African American poverty is down 50% since 1965.

I remember 25 years ago murder was out of control in a lot of cities. Those cities have turned around greatly.

Actually, most social indicators [[e.g, crime including murder, educational attainment, etc.) I'm familiar with are much, much better today then then 50 years ago despite we still have employment problems [[the labor market was much, much tighter 45 - 50 years ago because of a strong economy and so many American men fighting in Vietnam and out of the labor force).

I for one think we are doing pretty well despite losing a ton of decent paying blue collar jobs and the growth of low wage jobs.

Clearly we are running into a strong head wind caused by changes in employment.

Give us 3% [[consider full) unemployment and say a few million decent paying manufacturing jobs and this country will further along to sustained growth and well being.

Here is a stat I got from Mlive.com [[article on employment changes in all MI counties):

"The top performing county in that time period was Oakland County, which gained 93,597 jobs. The worst performing county was Wayne County, which lost 194,631 jobs." [[1990 - 2013).

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in...y_jobs.html#10

So Wayne County lost almost 200K jobs in 23 years and no one thinks it hasn't been a punch to the gut?????

I'm not a scientist, but I 'think like one.' Eat a big bag of potato chips and blood pressure goes up. Take a BP med and BP goes down.

Almost like a scientist in a lab manipulating variables and measuring the outcome.

Cities which lost tens of thousands of jobs, e.g., Detroit, Flint, Camden, etc. have suffered badly. And it is entirely predictable almost a 'lawful' relationship.

[Wesley Mouch]

Are they? Things have gotten better in the last 50 years. Poverty is down 40% according to President Obama. Meet The Press had a graphic that African American poverty is down 50% since 1965.

...snip...

Sticking with poverty for now, I found this argument of decreasing poverty surprising. Quick research suggests that the poverty rate in the 1950 thru 1960 was dropping like a rock, and then has levelled off since then. So I'm not sure the statistics are valuable in assessing anything in the last, say, 40 years.

I'm also curious how the stats look for urban poverty. A lot of the poverty in the US in the 50s and 60s was rural poverty. A lot was white. Much Appalachian.

Anyone got any real stats? I had a hard time getting past the vast volume of right-wing stats saying thing suck. And some left-wing stats saying things are great. Census bureau anyone?

[emu steve]

Sticking with poverty for now, I found this argument of decreasing poverty surprising. Quick research suggests that the poverty rate in the 1950 thru 1960 was dropping like a rock, and then has levelled off since then. So I'm not sure the statistics are valuable in assessing anything in the last, say, 40 years.

I'm also curious how the stats look for urban poverty. A lot of the poverty in the US in the 50s and 60s was rural poverty. A lot was white. Much Appalachian.

Anyone got any real stats? I had a hard time getting past the vast volume of right-wing stats saying thing suck. And some left-wing stats saying things are great. Census bureau anyone?

It's a shame but the Census Bureau [[I used to work there) produced something called "Social Indicators" in the 70s and 80s. My friend, a demographer, wrote several of the chapters, for Social Indicators III. [I used to own Social Indicators II but, of course, don't have it now.]

It had the best longitudinal data on about 11 different areas such as employment, educational attainment, health, income, crime, leisure and recreation, etc. etc.

It got canned when the Census Bureau budget took a real budget whacking in 1982 [[lot of employees lost their jobs - yes, federal employees have lost their jobs in budget shortfalls).

It was great for bring together national longitudinal data for a lot of much debated topics. Lot of great charts.

For those not familiar with the Census Bureau [[other then the decennial census), they have a very extensive data collection operation. When I was there they had a division [[approximately 175 headquarters employees) working on demographic surveys [[usually annual but some monthly) for BLS [[for the unemployment numbers. That is where the 5.4% unemployment number comes), Housing for HUD, health for HHS, crime for DOJ, consumer expenditures for BLS, etc. etc.

Unfortunately, it isn't really used well today in public policy debates. The data are still there...

Getting back to crime. Census did a 'criminal victimization survey' for DOJ. The most accurate crime data is homicide. That is very accurate data. The next best is probably this survey where respondents are actually asked if they have been a victim of crime. These data are probably much better than the FBI uniform crime report data. After all who know better if they were assaulted, robbed, had their house broken into, etc. then the victim???