Doubrovski, Martina, Roberts 1 Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas ...€¦ · Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas...

Doubrovski, Martina, Roberts 1

Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas Martina, Alexander Roberts

Professor Hudson

PS 1010

29 April 2015

A Proposal to House Homeless Detroiters

Overview:

Most associate homelessness with decrepit, unsafe, drug infested, high crime areas. This

notion is not completely off. Detroit, a major city in the United States, has the highest rate of

homelessness in the entire country, according to a study conducted in 2009 by the National

Alliance to End Homelessness. Over 216 people per 10,000 are homeless. Detroit is the Motor

City; it once ruled the auto industry and provided economic security to its residents. This

stability is no longer guaranteed and Detroit’s chronic turmoil needs to be stopped. Decreasing

the homeless population is crucial to the revival and survival of the city.

Assuming that homelessness is completely solvable is unrealistic; this task is nearly

impossible. However, collaborating and working towards a solution that solves a certain aspect

of homelessness is obtainable. To start our own effort in Detroit, we must understand national,

state, and local policy and observe the practices of other organizations who are trying to help the

same issue. Paying attention to the rules, reviewing organizations’ visions, understanding their

procedures, knowing their research, and learning from their operation will allow for the

formulation of a realistic and effective policy that can chip away at the extreme social problem of

homelessness. Systematic and individual involvement is necessary to get something done.

In this policy proposal, we will first explain the scope and extremity of homelessness

within the United States and specifically in Detroit. Next, we will describe how modernity


contributed to the growth of homeless statistics. We will name the stakeholders of this public

issue and will describe existing approaches aimed at solving and preventing homelessness.

These solutions are used by different levels of government and civic organizations and differ in

direct and indirect approaches. If homelessness was a simple fix, all the effort and planning put

into prevention and support would have already taken care of this solution. We propose a

solution that will not solve a large scope of the problem; however, it will make a great impact on

the homeless population that is seeking self-sustainability and property. Hard work, dedication,

motivation, and perseverance are necessary to obtain and maintain a positive outcome.

Suggested ways in how Wayne State University students can get involved in this effort are also

included.

The Problem

Unfortunate experiences and choices lead to homelessness. Some chose not to work for

their families or homes and chose drugs, alcohol, or gambling instead. Others are victims to

unpredictable and unfortunate events, such as economic downfall or destructive decisions made

by loved ones and providers. Domestic violence, divorce, job loss, mental illness, post-traumatic

stress disorder, physical disabilities, and drug addiction are common factors and events that put

people on the streets (HomeAid). In addition, a lack of affordable housing, low incomes,

scarcity of affordable health care, and cuts in safety net programs have also added to the

increasing rate of homelessness within the United States (NSCAHH). When predicting

homelessness, one can observe “individual characteristics [that] include youth, low income,

ethnicity (homelessness, like other forms of poverty, is far more prevalent among people of color

than among Whites in our society), status as a family member, and disabilities, such as poor


health or mental illness” (Shinn and Weitzman 4). These instances do not necessarily all lead

into homelessness, but they do put people at a high risk.

The United States is far too familiar with seeing its citizens sleeping and living on the

streets. A broad scope of people is affected by this unfortunate economic status. On any given

night, over 600,000 people are homeless within America (Henry). Adolescents make up 25%

percent of this rate (NSCAHH). Next to that, approximately 58,000 college students on

campuses are homeless across the United States (Gross). In addition, according to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, about ⅕ of the total homeless people in

America are mentally ill- suffering from schizophrenia, manic depression, or severe depression

(Jervis). Deinstitutionalization left psychiatric patients without treatment and care and some had

nowhere else to go but the streets. Mentally unstable or insane individuals make the streets

much more dangerous, aside from violence and drug use. With more people becoming

homeless, cities see more foreclosures, worker absenteeism, more use of emergency rooms, and

an overall negative economic impact (Pelham). Bills and crime rates can be the first to go up

when economic stability goes down. American cities seem to be drowning in serious

consequences brought upon them through homelessness.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Detroit has 713,777 people, of which about 20,000

are homeless, based on a report by the Homeless Action Network of Detroit (Trammell). Based

on HAND’s findings in Figure 1, 63% of the homeless population are male. Those between the

ages of 25 and 54 make up the most percent of the homeless population. About 90% of the total

homeless are African American, and 47% of the population are disabled. It is common for a

family or an individual to experience homelessness more than once. Studying these numbers, it

is clear, white flight contributed to these staggering numbers. In addition, those living on the


streets are susceptible to acts of violence, attacks, robbery and shaming (DRMM). Detroit has

been in the news for high crime and murder cases, the homeless could very well be the first

victims of these crimes. Identifying and preventing homelessness is especially important in the

city of Detroit, given the fact that the city spans 138.75 square miles and has a large amount of

homelessness scattered throughout its borders (US Census Bureau).

Figure 1 (HAND)

Background

Homelessness has evolved and grown based on constantly changing societal values and

needs. Modernity required technological advances and values such as efficiency, greed,

pleasure, and individuality in the twentieth and twenty first century, and lead into a new way of

seeing and living. Things are very temporary and we are not necessarily guaranteed success and

happiness, even if we put in consistent work and effort. This ideology of liberalism is not the

case in today’s society. Advancements and change create an ongoing cycle of homelessness; as


soon as someone got back on their feet, someone else lost their home. Life has become more

complex, and society has turned from the idea of gemeinschaft to gesellschaft, or community to

individual (Bilton). Self-interest and success outweighs public good and necessity, and those

who cannot support themselves become vulnerable to the system. A shift from religious values

to secular beliefs created a materialistic society (Black). After the Roaring Twenties and the

Great Depression, people lost their money and status and fell into great deficit. The 1940s and

50s saw the middle and upper class clear out of the city and move to suburbs that were cleaner,

safer, and more expensive; and the poor were left behind (Martelle). The responsibility of the

city was placed on weak shoulders, and eventually poverty and crime took over.

Focusing on Detroit’s industrialization in the twentieth century, the city found itself as

the Motor City, housing The Big Three within its borders. People were able to find jobs and

maintain a comfortable living. Going to school or pursuing a career could have been avoided,

considering the fact that good work and good pay without formal education were promised in the

auto industry. However, as capitalism became more of a major player in the American economy,

efficiency became an important value and companies began to replace their workers with

machines. Capitalism made commodities out of goods, services, and labor, which are

determined by rational calculation (Bilton et al). When referring to rationality, it means “the

systematic pursuit of goals – finding the optimum means to a specified end.” (Bilton). And “all

business and loans needed to be rationalized so that there could be continuity” (Allen). With

this in mind, more workers started getting laid off, bills were not able to be paid, and some

families had no means to keep their homes.


Why should we care?

Walking around, driving around, biking around Detroit, it is clear- homelessness is a

critically increasing social issue within city limits, in addition to the state, nation, and world. For

some, the homeless are a nuisance and a deterrent to business within the city. For others, they

serve as a grim reminder of personal social status and economic standing. When bystanders

consider homelessness, they usually assume that the persons’ own mistakes have put them there.

Society has placed a social stigma on these individuals, and as a result, turned the social classes

against each other. Those who fall financially can be considered failures of America’s

capitalistic society. A second year student at Wayne State, Spencer Genrich, points this out by

stating, “I think outsiders would want to stay away from places like Detroit because of

homelessness, but I think what they forget that there are homeless people everywhere, including

their own towns.” With these preconceived notions, people and businesses may avoid Detroit

and interrupt city renewal.

It is also necessary to consider that everyone is susceptible to the overhanging threat of

homelessness and destitutions, although some have greater odds than others. According to a

study conducted by Affordable Housing Finance, in a given year, one in two hundred people

with any economic standing have a chance of becoming homeless. The odds increase for those

living below the poverty line, where one in twenty five become homeless. Pretending like you

are immune to homelessness is naive and irresponsible. Learning about homelessness and

working to prevent it can help narrow the scope of the problem.


Analysis:

Stakeholders

Homelessness influences everyone’s life, regardless of social or economic status. All the

moving pieces within Detroit are affected. People in severe poverty become homeless and are

personally affected. Families and friends of these victims are then left with more responsibility

and worry. Established businesses, prospective businesses, employers, employees, and those

residing within and outside the city border must deal with homelessness in their own way.

Keeping the street in front of a business or home clear of the homeless, providing food or money

to those in need, walking past makeshift public homes are consequences of the serious problem

of homelessness in Detroit. Because of this, people outside of the city may be discouraged to

visit, work, live or seek entertainment in Detroit. College students studying in Detroit are also

touched by homelessness. Walking around campus may be easy, but walking to other locations

around campus tends to involve homeless men and women standing on the street asking for

money. While this encounter is not life or death, it is burdensome. Whether it be pity, disgust,

or indifference, broke college students are getting asked for money they barely have.

Anyone who walks the streets, works, lives in, studies in, drives through, visits, or

establishes a business in Detroit is somehow involved in city homelessness. More people have

started to recognize this crisis and are teaming up to make a positive impact on the situation.

Civic organizations hold power to create and uphold public policy while practicing direct

physical contact to help the homeless and prevent homelessness.

Problem Solving Efforts

Solving public turmoil requires a balance between public policy and civic involvement.

Analyzing and understanding policies that have already been put into place and looking to


existing civic organizations as positive examples will allow for an increase in effort and a

decrease in homelessness susceptibility and prevalence. Public policy refers to “governmental

programs, rules, and courses of action” (AG Lenz and Holman). Without it, no real work could

get done. Legal assistance as well as agency encourages performance and application. All these

efforts have their own flaws, and it is necessary to identify and address them in order to create an

efficient process. Every effort, policy, and organization geared to end homelessness is not

mentioned in this proposal; however, the ones that are formally established, successful (based on

their scope and magnitude), and have been used for years are described and later analyzed.

National Efforts

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is the first federal law intended to respond

to homelessness in America. It states an extensive and intricate definition of homelessness that

includes people who do not have a regular and adequate nighttime residence, who sleep in a

public or private place not designed for sleeping accommodations, who have temporary living

arrangements, or who reside in a shelter or a place not meant for human habitation (HUD). This

law allows the existence of homeless programs such as Continuum of Care, Supportive Housing,

and Emergency Shelter Grant Program. Continuum of Care is a federal effort to provide funding

for non-profit organizations and state and local governments that are working to help

homelessness. Housing options and additional funding are also outlined in this legal policy.

Specifically, homeless children are given “access to a free and appropriate public school

education” by enforcing the enrollment of students and providing additional services (MDE).

Homelessness is an unfortunate situation to be in, and being a child without a proper home and

education is much worse. Public schools are floors that serve as a tool in education and in


providing a sense of community and support. Everyone has the right to an education in America,

regardless of family income and economic standing. This general outline of the policy ensures

education equality for all children. Extra time and effort to identify these children and provide

for them can be considered a safety net. This keeps some students from falling through the

cracks of the American educational system and eventually the economic system. (More details

about this policy are stated in Local Efforts: Detroit Public Schools.)

Supportive Housing

Supportive Housing is a public policy that provides housing and social services that

ensure sustainability and cater to the needs of the homeless (Glauber). The supportive services

can be provided to the homeless in shelters or they can be available in the community. Because

of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act of 1987, The United States has used this federal policy

to create the Supportive Housing Demonstration Program. The whole point of the program is to

provide funds to develop and maintain housing for the homeless. Supportive housing can be

driven by the idea of ‘housing first.’ Housing First is a method that “offers permanent housing

as quickly as possible for people experiencing homelessness, especially for people with long

histories of homelessness and co-occurring health challenges, while providing the supportive

services people need to keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness” (USICH). The

idea is to first provide housing to the homeless. Then, services to help physical/mental health,

aid in substance abuse, provide education, and encourage employment are provided.

The civic organization that applied the idea of Housing First and put it into practice is

Pathways to Housing. It focuses on the mentally ill, the disabled, veterans, and the chronically

homeless. An important feature of their philosophy is to provide housing scattered throughout a

community. This contributes to a sense of independence, importance, and motivation. With the


help of government contracts, private contracts, Medicaid, and client income, Pathways to

Housing has been able to provide the homeless with more opportunities and options.

Requirements include clients paying thirty percent of their income for rent and partaking in two

home visits by case managers every month. The homeless are not the only ones prospering from

this system. Housing the homeless is much more cost-effective for the government and

community than constantly paying for jails, shelters, emergency rooms, or psychiatric hospitals.

Taking care of the homeless can cost the government over forty thousand dollars per person a

year, while Housing First practice would only cost around seventeen thousand dollars per person

a year (Surowiecki). This method has been adapted by other countries around the world,

including Australia, Canada, and Finland.

Supportive housing is being practiced in the city of Detroit. Different shelters and

organizations that are later mentioned provide this additional service and use case managers to

maintain the process. Whether it be transitional housing in a shelter or permanent housing in

apartments or condos, supportive housing allows the less fortunate to work for their own

personal residence. (More information is mentioned in Action: Housing First).

State Efforts

Michigan 10-Year Plan

Michigan’s 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness was created by The Campaign to End

Homelessness and is attempting to encourage specific organizations to accomplish tasks geared

towards helping homelessness. This campaign believes that “no man, woman, or child should be

forced to sleep on the streets, in the woods, or on a cot in a shelter on any night, in any town or

city in Michigan” (MSHDA). They go on to state, “our campaign must span all interested

constituent groups: shelters, housing providers, service providers, federal, state, and local


agencies, foundations, education entities, businesses, and private citizens . . . Our effort must

secure and maintain extraordinary commitments at the local, regional, and state levels.” Five

major themes must be addressed in order to impact homelessness positively. These themes

include: (1) increasing leadership, collaboration, and civic engagement; (2) increasing access to

stable and affordable housing; (3) increasing economic security; (4) improving health and

stability; (5) and retooling the homeless crisis response system (MSHDA). To achieve this,

broadening organizations’ knowledge and providing homeless education grants can be done.

Housing is critical to be able to obtain a job, and this is what may truly get people back on their

feet. If someone is financially secure, they are much less likely to fall to homelessness (again).

This ten year plan counts on Continuums of Care, a concept upheld by the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development, to fund and provide different services to allow homeless

people to retain jobs once they are off the streets.

Narrowing in on a simple objective, for example, to “improve access to mainstream

programs and services to reduce people’s financial vulnerability to homelessness,” is much more

practical than just planning on ‘keeping people off the streets and solve homelessness

completely’ (MSHDA). The campaign planned out steps to achieving this and provided target

dates. Some of the steps included, “make connections to work supports through nonprofits,

connect veterans to entitlement benefits, promote the statewide use of SOAR” (MSHDA). The

Michigan State Housing Development Authority believes that collaboration, resources that support

elements of effective housing, safe and affordable housing and necessary services, and collecting

and reporting quality data are their guiding principles that will influence positive outcomes.

Cities have pledged to end homelessness in the early 2000s but we still have seen minimal

change (Walters). Statewide policy and encouragement can put cities on the right track.


Local Efforts

Community based efforts are much more personal and effective when it comes to helping

the homeless. They know firsthand the causes and effects of the problem are and use local

resources and locations to make an impact. If we combined the successful aspects of each

organization, surely a more prosperous outcome can occur.

Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries

Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries is part of the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions

and is an accredited charity of the Better Business Bureau (DRMM). Valuing “Christian

stewardship and ethical financial practices,” this organization works to fight against poverty and

different forms of addiction (DRMM). According to the organization’s website, the Rescue

Mission provides substance abuse treatments, job preparation, and educational courses,

emergency shelters, along with transitional and permanent housing. Substance abuse treatments

are used to help uninsured abusers attain sobriety, while educational courses range from

employability skills to parenting skills. The shelters have provided, annually, the homeless with

one million meals, more than 75,000 clothing items, showers, and a summer camp experience for

inner-city youth (DRMM). Counseling and guidance is provided to those who are looking for

government services and are trying to get back up from their financial instability. The Detroit

Rescue Mission Ministries states, “You’ve got to help the homeless help themselves.” Being

aware of the fact that Detroit has “over 18,000 homeless people in need of shelter on any given

night,” and that more than “10,000 families in Wayne County will become homeless at least one

during the next year,” keeps this organization working hard to provide shelter, food, support, and

hope for the less fortunate (DRMM). In fact, the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries, along with

Cass Community Social Services, and Operation Get Down, have started to open up warming


centers for the homeless due to the freezing temperatures Detroit has recently experienced

(Helms). The location of DRMM on Third Avenue has one hundred beds open each night.

Being an active and community supported organization, DRMM is able to provide some sort of

stability for those who lost so much.

Unfortunately, the shelter and soup kitchen cannot help all the homeless in Detroit.

Shelter location and mealtimes may not be convenient or known to the entire population. Some

may not have means of transportation or access to the shelters. Food may run out and those in

the back of the line will go hungry for the night. Beds fill up quickly and some are forced to

sleep outside.

Coalition on Temporary Shelter

This organization knows that in order to maintain a house, families also need to have

financial, health, education or training, and employment stability. Focusing on ‘housing first,’

COTS provides “coaching, mentoring, program and community partner resources, and

meaningful incentives to facilitate families to develop economic self-sufficiency and stabilized

environment that will have a multi-generational impact” (COTS). Main concerns of this

organization include: (1) teaching families how to use the health care system; (2) establishing

proper financial practices; (3) practicing a healthy lifestyle; (4) and satisfying basic education

requirements (COTS). They also offer temporary and permanent shelters for the homeless, as

well as other necessities such as food and rehabilitation programs. COTS has several housing

locations set up all over the city, each of them offering slightly different programs. The COTS

emergency shelter, located at their headquarters, offers over 100 beds and allows individuals to

stay there for one night, while the transitional housing program allows people to stay with them

for two years (Trammell). There is also the Permanent Supportive Housing Program which


focuses on special needs and works to deal with many of the causes of homelessness, such as

disabilities, mental illness, and addiction (COTS). These programs are very beneficial because

they provide those with so little with shelter, resources, and support to get back into the work

field again. Establishing self-sufficiency is the main goal of all these services.

Self- sufficiency may be the organization’s plan, but some homeless may not be

interested in additional programs and services. They may just want food and shelter and then to

be left alone. While the ideology of this organization is helpful and instrumental, if the homeless

are not willing to accept the help, the problem becomes stagnant.

Homeless Action Network of Detroit

HAND is a city based resource that works to create solutions and advocates for the social

problem of homelessness. Sharing information, planning, and networking with civic

organizations, as well as local, state, and federal government entities, HAND is able to “provide

leadership to address homelessness” (HAND). Found on the organization’s website, it is clear

that collaboration, competence, commitment, performance, integrity, and advocacy serve as core

fundamental values. Federal funding is used to address a wide range of people’s needs, whether

they are homeless or are at high risk. Homeless Action Network of Detroit is able to get this

funding by using the Continuum of Care process of identifying a local need, developing a plan,

and applying for funding (HAND). In fact, HAND is the lead agency for the CoC because it

promotes community oriented strategies, coordination, and manages the comprehensive grant

application to The Department of Housing and Urban Development for McKinney- Vento

funding, all of which include State Emergency Solutions Grant Funds as well as Continuum of

Care funds (HAND). HAND’s system coordination includes the planning for the CAM,

otherwise known as Coordinated Assessment Model. It is meant to change the process of how


housing services are accessed and provided for the community. The goals include: (1) greater

accessibility to resources; (2) standardized intakes and assessments; (3) coordinated referrals; (4)

collaborative partnerships” (HAND). In addition, HAND also manages Detroit’s Homeless

Management Information System, or HMIS, to record and keep tabs on who is homeless, what

their needs are, and how to solve these problems. Advocating for the homeless, HAND contacts

government representation and encourages membership and work to positively impact this social

issue in Detroit. According to handdetroit.org, policy priorities include: (1) funding for

Homeless Assistance; (2) creation and funding of low income/affordable housing; (3) funding for

and access to mainstream benefits, health care, mental health funding and accessibility; (4) and

Housing Safety and Decency within the City of Detroit. Additional policies HAND also cares

for include: (1) criminal justice; (2) wealth building and consumer debt; (3) minimum wage and

community development; (4) domestic violence and other abusive relationships; (5) emotional,

physical and sexual trauma; (6) foster care and child protective services; (7) child

care/supervision; (8) positive social networks; (9) education; (10) disabilities. Focusing on the

first mentioned is a priority because these fundamental needs serve as a foundation for the rest of

the city’s problems.

Being an organization that does both direct and indirect work, HAND offers its hand to

the homeless in more complex ways. Continuum of Care provides funds for the services the

organization provides, but what happens if the budget is smaller than the needed amount? Policy

formulation and implementation can be a long and tedious process. Surely every plan HAND

has created or started has not be successful or impactful. Trial and error is common when it

comes to civic organizations working to create legal policy.

Detroit Public Schools


Detroit Public Schools have created their own local policy in accord with federal law,

regarding the education of homeless children and youth in Detroit. Under the McKinney-Vento

Homeless Assistance Act, part of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Detroit Board of Education

strives to provide homeless children with academic opportunity to achieve state and local

standards. To do this, discrimination, segregation, and harassment must be abandoned and a

focus on education must be implemented. It is necessary to establish a working criteria that

considers children and youth homeless. Those who fall under this category are youth (21 years

and younger) (1) who do not have a regular nighttime residence; (2) who are sharing housing of

others without their parents; (3) who live in motels/hotels or trailers; (4) who live in emergency

or transitional shelters; (5) who spend their nighttime residence in a public or private place not

intended for sleeping use; (6) who are waiting for foster care placement; (7) those who are not in

the custody of a parent or guardian (DPS). Although this definition is clear, the next difficult

step is identifying these children. Unfortunately, not all homeless children will be recognized

and provided with an education. However, Detroit Public Schools Homeless Unit trains “district

staff, parents, transitional housing facilities, and other community agencies” how to identify

homeless children, how to behave in this situation, and the procedure to take when informing the

DPS Homeless liaison (DPS). Verification of the identified child is carried out by Attendance

Agents.

It is nice to say that all children must get an education, but sometimes schools don’t

follow or enforce the rules. This policy states, that Detroit schools must enroll homeless students

and unaccompanied youth immediately with or without proper documentation, as this will be

dealt with after enrollment. Transporting these children will be handled with proper planning

and care. All of this will be possible with coordination between “public and private service


providers in the community; housing and placement agencies; the pupil transportation

department; neighboring local liaisons; and other organizations and agencies” (DPS). Homeless

children and parents have outlined rights when pertaining to education in Detroit. Besides being

able to attend school and participate in school programs and services, homeless students will also

be eligible for free meals. Parents will have the right to monitor their children’s enrollment and

seek help if there are any enrollment conflicts. Services that are provided to other students will

include school social work services, Head Start, counseling, parent education, school nutrition

programs, referrals for medical and mental health services, tutoring programs, and Title I

services (DPS). Under Title I, basic programs are to be improved, such as helping disadvantaged

and delinquent children meet academic standards by providing supplementary instruction for

students. These programs are put into effect, especially in high poverty schools. In this policy’s

case, programs for disabled students and classes for students with limited English skill are

provided.

Essentially, this policy is working to provide an equal education opportunity for all

children in Detroit, regardless of residence, social status, or race. Providing the child with a solid

educational foundation might be the only consistent part of their lives. With their home life

being flaky or nonexistent, school may be their only reliable source of happiness and safety. This

policy provides children with education, food, daily safety, counseling, and activities that create

friendships and support, regardless of social stigma. On the other hand, some youth will slip

through the system, go unnoticed, or not want to be enrolled in school. One of the toughest parts

of this process could be identifying the youth, encouraging resistant youth, encouraging resistant

parents, and maintaining youth enrollment. Not all students will face this dilemma, however,

some will not use this positive resource.


Barriers

If homelessness was easy to solve, it would have been done by now. Various barriers

have obstructed the ability to ameliorate this problem. Institutional and structural barriers hinder

government and civic powers from getting the job done. Identifying these weaknesses and

combining efforts can make the solution stronger and much more powerful. Policy

implementation cannot be totally effective; someone might not enforce the policy, be aware of

the policy, understand the policy, or even want to utilize the policy. Direct efforts could also be

inconclusive. Lack of enthusiasm, appreciation, and motivation can create glitches in the

practice of organizations working directly with the homeless. More specific barriers to

previously stated solutions are analyzed below.

Being an institutional barrier, scarcity of federally subsidized housing can stop people

from obtaining affordable housing. Most of the time, people are willing to work hard and move

forward; unfortunately, there is a lack of necessary funding to get this started. In fact, about one

third of all individuals/families that are eligible for subsidized housing actually receive it

(Roman and Travis). Even though funding has been sanctioned, it does not necessary mean that

enough is being spent to actually make a serious change in homelessness in America. In

addition, HUD’s budget for new permanent housing and other programs for the homeless has

been dwindling. Federal funding for the Supportive Housing Program provides for emergency

shelters, transitional housing, and supportive services. Without supportive services, the people in

need will be at a greater risk of losing their homes given to them by Housing First. Federal

funding has dropped as much as 45% within a year in the past and “less than $1 of every $5 in

the . . . homeless assistance budget went into adding new housing” (Law). Legislation to

increase homeless prevention funding has been turned down too many times because of political


clashes between Democrats and Republicans. Sometimes the conditions include decreasing

federal salary. It is difficult for Congress to come to an agreement and start passing productive

bills with an ideological divide. Continual disagreement only makes homelessness a bigger and

uncontrollable problem. How much is life worth over money to our legislators? The Obama

administration has proposed a 16% increase in funding to the McKinney- Vento Homeless

Assistance Grants Program in 2015’s fiscal year and an increase in funding to help homeless

veterans. Will this proposal pass? The government needs to reach a consensus in order to

actually make an appreciable reduction in homelessness.

Human error, seen as a structural barrier, gets in the way of successful homeless

prevention and assistance programs. Based on varying values, attitudinal divides, schedules, and

physical ability, we do not have the perfect means to solve such a deep and broad issue like

homelessness. Policy implementation flaws lead to systematic confusion and weakness. People

who are in supportive housing require consistent and persistent support. It is often difficult to

manage a meaningful and effective meeting between case manager and client. Being agents in

homelessness prevention, both parties need to be on the same page. This is not always the

situation. Sometimes, case managers, those who are supposed to follow up and help the prior-

homeless, do not have enough time to help all their clients. Different programs have different

ratios of case managers to clients. However, at Pathways to Housing, a team of nine carries a

caseload of 60 to 70 patients; each member gets no more than 8 clients (Locke et al). One thing

is certain, there is always paperwork to fill out and file; this time could have been spent meeting

with the clients. The hardest part of the job could be having to “recognize the ‘early warning

signs’ of potential ‘failure’ in permanent housing” (MDAC and CMHPSR). Case managers need

to be observant and committed in order to identify a problem and fix it. Sometimes, case


managers do not uphold their professional requirement and slack off or prioritize some clients

over others. Not every case manager keeps a right code of conduct, takes responsibility, and is

passionate about helping the homeless.

On the other hand, the clients themselves may not be keeping up their part of the deal and

may start to slip up. They may not keep their homes clean or keep themselves clean (literally

and figuratively). Not everyone is cut out for the responsibility Housing First requires, while

some do not want to live in homes administrated by social workers (Law). Temptations are all

around clients who are trying to recover from substance abuse. Crimes and drug activities may

be occurring in their neighborhood and this can affect clients from staying sober, eventually

diminishing their ability to continue in supportive housing. Power lies in both the case

managers’ and clients’ hands. The case managers provide guidance and support, while clients

provide results and commitment. Because intentions, values, ideals, and attitudes differ, it is

difficult to create a steady and operative system that could potentially terminate homelessness.

Politicians who run on a ‘let’s save the homeless’ platform may not have the right

intentions or may be making the wrong promises are also an example of human error. Success,

status, and power drive politicians and they know that sometimes they have to make promised

they can’t keep. Take for example, former Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg who

implemented a five year plan to end homelessness when he was elected. This plan was based on

the ideas of Housing First. However, after five years came around with little success, the city of

New York resorted to literally buying people one way tickets out of the city (Bosman, 2009).

After the five year time span ran out, New York City had actually seen an increase in

homelessness. These plane tickets were used as a bailout for the mayor. While the practice of

flying the homeless out of the city may be able to be justified, a social contract to provide for its


citizens is broken by the government. The city may have this as a quicker fix that would

eventually roll over to be someone else’s problem. Spending $500 on a plane ticket over

spending about $35,000 to take care of an individual a year proved to be much more appealing to

the city of New York (Bosman). This calls politicians' values and principles into question.

In addition, ignorance to homelessness is astonishingly high. People know that some

people sleep under viaducts but they fail to recognize that some homeless are ‘doubling up’ or

moving from shelter to shelter. Doubling up is when a person stays with friends or family to

prevent themselves from being homeless, even though they actually are. Failing to know the

facts and factors that lead to homelessness keeps society in the dark and pauses the progress to

help and prevent homelessness. People are less likely to get involved in the cause if they do not

know that there is a serious problem.

Public opinion may believe that the homeless are terrible, scary, and lazy people; this

could be explained by structural barriers that created these societal divides and influenced public

apathy (Lee). Social stratification makes advancement to a higher social class very difficult for

those who were born poor and lack the means to escape their quandary (Schaefer 149). This

truth contrasts with the American belief in meritocracy, where social status is related to merit, or

in this case, how hard one works. Social dynamics and pre-existing restraints make social

mobility an uncommon occurrence. If public opinion and involvement is negative then civic

organizations like DRMM and COTS do not have enough social support. With less volunteers,

donors, and advocates, these civic organizations are limited in their effective practice.

Overcoming these hurdles can be done by increasing awareness via the media, focusing

on fixing implementation flaws, improving public opinion, and enforcing legal responsibility.

Keeping these fixes in mind, perhaps housing the homeless and helping them pick themselves up


from financial turmoil will be most effective. Once more and more homeless are helped and

more people see the success of our suggested direct action, public opinion can change and more

money can be provided to organizations working to provide for the homeless.

Action:

Institutional Change and Political Advocacy

In order to make a valid institutional and structural change, agency along with established

institutions can work together to create public policy. Awareness is the first step, and staying

updated will direct us to the possible opportunities to help solve this problem. Without

commitment and involvement, a permanent change cannot be achieved. Media is a very

powerful tool, we might as well use it for the right reasons (Lenz). Our legislators are now

turning to social media outlets and are using them to communicate with the public. More

followers, more likes, more favorites, more shares can get our government to realize this is a

serious issue and it needs to be addressed.

Housing First

One of the more positive and liberating solutions to this problem is based on the Housing

First program. People are provided with a stable environment and then are eased into treatment

to make an actual beneficial change. A sense of privacy, independence, and determination can

make the homeless more responsible and set on creating a living for themselves again. Housing

First is able to overcome previously stated barriers with time. Getting more people into homes

and apartments decreases the homeless numbers and call allow for more federal funding to be

allocated to the help and prevention of homelessness. Through time, human error decreases

because the system becomes perfected. Public opinion and knowledge will shift towards a

hopeful and encouraging state when we start to see the positive outcomes of housing the


homeless and then providing supportive services and rehabilitation. Being a private run effort,

politicians will not have a chance to ‘claim’ the initiative as their personal project and pledge.

Utah used the idea of Housing First to create a ten year plan to end long term

homelessness by giving apartments to the homeless. With this practice, there has been over a

seventy percent decrease in homelessness (Deseret News editorial). Taking people off of the

streets and providing them a place to live allows them to focus on the root of the problem and

gives them the ability to find treatment or acquire the skills needed to overcome their situation.

The program helps them acquire a job, and only has an annual rate of ten percent leaving the

program to become independent, while the rest usually remain in the program working towards

that goal (Deseret News editorial).

Programs similar to this have been set up all across the United States, like in Wyoming,

Florida, and New York. These states have seen a decrease in spending on the homeless. Those

who did not receive housing ended up costing the city over $40,000 dollars per year in regards to

hospital and prison costs, among other things. Those who were able to obtain housing ended up

only costing close to $17,000 dollars annually and were less likely to end up back on the street

(Jervis).

Recently, Detroit has set up its own program which offers apartments to the homeless.

The Arthur Antisdel Apartments, which were opened by Cass Community Social Services, house

over 40 homeless people and provide educational and rehabilitation programs. Occupants help

pay for their new homes by contributing thirty percent of their income as a form of rent

(Battaglia). Based on the results of the other similar programs created across the country, it is

likely that these apartments will be successful, however it remains too soon to tell.


Direct Action

Tiny Houses

Housing First ideology is an effective practice that should be used by Detroit to combat

homelessness. As previously stated, overcoming barriers of insufficient federal funding, public

indifference, and natural error can be done with tiny houses. However, time, patience, and

practice will accomplish this. Providing a safe and stable environment can ease a person in need

into rehabilitative and educational programs. In correlation with this practice, building small

houses and creating tiny communities would house those who are in need of assistance and are

willing to work for their homes. Selection for the recipients of the tiny homes will be based on

commitment, personal progress financially and mentally, and willingness to make a change.

This idea has shown success in Wisconsin, where activists have already built three houses and

are working on six more. Using private donations, volunteers are able to construct a shelter for

someone in desperate need of a home. A community room, kitchen, laundry room, and

bathroom is located in the middle of the community composed of tiny homes (Couch).

By utilizing the vacant land in Detroit, and with support from Michigan’s Campaign to

End Homelessness, or potentially a smaller, non-profit group, these houses could be built as

communes in the city. The community would have to be built in an area that does not have many

residential or business areas around it, or high crime and drug rates. Seclusion and privacy are

necessary for the homeless and the residents of Detroit. Mixing both situations in the same area

is doomed to fail. In their own commune and tiny houses, the homeless will have a stable, safe,

and solid place to reside. Staying warm or cool, based on varying seasons, is a basic necessity

for any human being. These tiny houses would serve as a sanctuary for those who once had

nothing. Tiny homes do not necessarily have to serve as permanent housing, but can be a form


of transitional housing that prepares people for a larger and more expensive commitment in the

future. Treating a person with love, kindness, and respect can encourage them to become a

functioning and positively contributing member of society.

Drawing ideas from ‘homeless apartments,’ the homeless would be given job

opportunities and would have access to educational and rehabilitation programs. Providing a

percentage of their income would go to these services. To build, insulate, and properly equip

these tiny home costs roughly $5,000 per house (Nellemann). Most of the money would be

raised by donations, and the houses themselves would be built by volunteers; both of which

could raise awareness to the issue and inspire community involvement. Based on the success of

this program, the communes could be expanded and more could be built across the city, allowing

more homeless people to get off the streets and sleep with ease.

The general idea of these communities would resemble the plan in Figure 2. Home

planning can resemble Figure 3. Adapting to different terrain and climate conditions would

surely result in an altered plan. In Detroit’s case, we could have larger communes due to the

extensive area of land.

Detroit has a community of homeless people who have formed their own tent cities and

even built their own tiny houses (LaVoie). If the extremely poor and socially disabled can work

together to create some sort of shelter and community to live in and be part of, imagine the

success that could come about from legal and civic organizations helping them do it. With more

funding, involvement, and resources, the tiny homes can actually be insulated, stable, and safe.

People have started to pay attention to this new approach and are starting to put this to practice.

The idea needs to spread and people need to unite and organize an institution that can lead the

way in housing those who have lost the most.


Figure 2 (Nellemann)

Figure 3 (Tiny House Design)


Barriers

Barriers are surely going to get in the way. Funding and proper planning are crucial for

this project, and while a majority of the planned funding will come from donations, another

source of funding could certainly help ensure the project’s completion. Taking on this challenge

individually will prove to be cumbersome and inconclusive. Bigger institutions will be able to

divide the work and conquer the project with various hands and minds working together.

Finding the right location and acquiring legal permission to have this community will take proper

planning and timing. Legal papers that allow this plot of land to be used for the community are

needed. Avoiding high crime and drug rate locations is crucial. Initially, the public may not

approve of this project, so the communes would have to be segregated from private residences

and buildings. Over time, people will get accustomed to the ide and work together to move

forward as a community. Barriers are bound to get in the way; what distinguishes between

success and failure is the ability to overcome these barriers and move forward.

Wayne State University Students Get Involved

Wayne State students can get involved in this efforts by using social media and

advocating the policy. This can be accomplished by searching ‘tiny house for the homeless’ in

different discourse communities found on tumblr, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter. People are

starting to notice this new and simple idea. This is evident in the pictures people post on their

accounts of the tiny homes or of the process of creating the homes. Online competitions to plan

the best tiny house community are starting and tiny house builders are writing about their

experiences in their blogs. The virtual world has made communication and networking much

easier.


Joining the National Student Campaign to End Hunger and Homelessness could also be

beneficial and instrumental. The organization already has events, programs, and information

regarding homeless prevention and aid. Teaming up with this organization and introducing these

programs to the university can spread the word and get more students involved and informed.

Volunteering and encouraging established civic and market organizations to take up this

project would be an example of effective direct action. This idea entails large quantities of time

and money. College students cannot dedicate all their time to start up a company that requires so

many legal documentation and permission. Economics majors and business majors could get

involved in the process by teaming up with existing organizations and creating a Wayne State

Chapter of the effort. Students majoring in architecture and urban planning can team up to create

a blueprint for a tiny house and its community. Spreading the word and getting local shelters that

provide transitional housing involved can bring in numbers to fill these homes. With an

increasing demand for these homes and communities, an organization is sure to pick up and fund

this project.

Conclusion

Building these tiny houses is not the absolute answer to homelessness. While the idea of

a tiny house community is one that would substantially help the problem of homelessness, it

would by no means accommodate all of the homeless within the city. As we stated previously,

the problem of homelessness is not one that can be solved in the foreseeable future. However,

that does not mean that people should not be willing to help the problem. Raising awareness and

encouraging community involvement is vital to this policy’s success. Our immediate answer to

helping homelessness is to be active within the problem by donating time or money. While this

effort may feel small, it is helping the problem nonetheless.


The problem of Detroit homelessness is not one that can be solved with the

implementation of one policy. Various efforts and ideas are needed to tackle such a broad and

deep issue. Looking at nationally implemented policies and analyzing the effects of civic

organizations, it is possible to make connections between their methods and successfully create a

policy to combat homelessness. One of the most effective methods in doing so are Housing First

programs, which provide the homeless with housing and additional services that improve their

lives. Specifically, building tiny house communities can provide more people with a safe and

stable environment that will allow for personal and economic advancement.


Work Cited

Affordable Housing Finance. Affordable Housing Finance. Affordable Housing Finance, 1 Jan.

2011. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.

AG-Lenz, Holman. Chapter 2: The US Constitutional Government.

Allen, Kenneth D. 2012. Explorations in Classic Sociological Theory. SAGE. Chapter 5:

Authority and Rationality—Max Weber (German, 1864–1920)

Battaglia, Tammy Stables. “Grand opening of Detroit apartment building ends homelessness for

tenants.” Detroit Free Press. 7 Nov. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

Bilton, Tony, Kevin Bonnett, Pip Jones, Tony Lawson, David Skinner, Michelle Stanworth,

Andrew Webster. 2002. Introductory Sociology. Palgrave-Macmillan. Chapter 2: Living

in Modernity.

Bosman, Julie. "City Aids Homeless With One-Way Tickets Home." The New York Times. The

New York Times, 28 July 2009. Web. 1 Apr. 2015.

Coalition On Temporary Shelter. COTS. Coalition On Temporary Shelter, 2014. Web. 3 Feb.

2015.

Couch, Robbie. “Tiny Houses For Homeless People Put Roofs Over Heads In Time For The

Holidays.” The Huffington Post. 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

Department of Education. McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvements Act

of 2001. U.S. Department of Education. "Part C – Homeless Education." U.S.

Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education, 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.

Detroit Michigan Homeless Shelters and Services. "Detroit Michigan Homeless Shelters &

Services For The Needy." Detroit Homeless Shelters and Services. Detroit Michigan

Homeless Shelters and Services, 2015. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.


Detroit Public Schools. Detroit Public Schools: Education of Homeless Children and Youth

Policy.

Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries. Detroit Rescue Mission. Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries,

2013. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.

Glauber, Diane. "The Evolution of Supportive Housing." National Housing Institute. National

Housing Institute, July-Aug. 1996. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

National Housing Institute. National Housing Institute. National Housing Institute, July-Aug.

1996. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Gross, Lexy. "College Campuses See Rise in Homeless Students." USA Today. Gannett, 21 Oct.

2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2015.

Helms, Matt. "As Temperatures Dip, Detroit Opens Warming Centers."Detroit Free Press.

Detroit Free Press, 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.

HomeAid. "Top Causes of Homelessness in America." HomeAid. HomeAid, 2015. Web. 07 Feb.

2015.

Homeless Action Network of Detroit. HAND. Homeless Action Network of Detroit, 2015. Web.

09 Feb. 2015.

Jervis, Rick. “The Cost of Not Caring.” USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.

2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.

Jonas, Jillan. "New Efforts Fail to Reduce Homelessness." Gotham Gazette: The Place for New

York Policy and Politics. Gotham Gazette, 2 Nov. 2009. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.

Kimura, Donna. "Study: More Americans Are Homeless." Affordable Housing Finance. Housing

Finance, 1 Jan. 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.


LaVoie, Laura. "Detroit Tiny Homes: Creative Shelters and Abandoned Spaces." Tiny House

Talk. Tiny House Media, 26 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.

Law, Violet. "Too Much of a Good Thing?" Shelterforce Online 149 (Spring 2007). National

Housing Institute. National Housing Institute. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Lee, Barrett A., Sue Hinze Jones, and David W. Lewis. "Public Beliefs about the Causes of

Homelessness." Social Forces 69.1 (1990): 253. ProQuest. Web. 24 Feb. 2015.

Locke, G., Buron, L., Montgomery, A., Pearson, C., Abt Associates Inc., Walter R. McDonald &

Associates, Inc. The Applicability of Housing First Models to Homeless Persons with

Serious Mental Illness. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of

Policy Development and Research. July 2007.

Madonia, Peter. "Uniting for Solutions Beyond Shelter." Action Plan (2003): The City of New

York, 2003. Web. 1 Apr. 2015.

Martelle, Scott. Detroit {A Biography}. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, Incorporated. 2012.

Print.

M. Davis and Company, Inc (MDAC), and University of Pennsylvania Center for Mental Health

Policy and Services Research (CMHPSR). “Predicting Staying In or Leaving Permanent

Supportive Housing That Serves Homeless People with Serious Mental Illness.”

U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and

Research, Mar. 2006. Web.

Michigan Department of Education. "Education of Homeless Children and Youth." Michigan

Department of Education. Michigan Department of Education. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.


Michigan State Housing Development Authority. “Michigan 10 Year Plan to End

Homelessness.” Michigan State Housing Development Authority, Sept. 2013. Web. 8

Feb. 2015.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. "Geography of Homelessness, Part 2: Prevalence of

Homelessness." National Alliance to End Homelessness. National Alliance to End

Homelessness, 27 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Nellemann, Christina. “Madison Tiny House Village for the Homeless.” Humanitarian. 17 Nov.

2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2015

Pathways to Housing. "Annual Report 2013." Pathways to Housing. Pathways to Housing, 2013.

Web. 30 Mar. 2015.

Pelham, Katherine. "Homelessness Is an Issue We Can't Ignore." Times Union. The Hearst

Corporation, 21 Nov. 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

Robertson, Marjorie J., and Paul A. Toro. "Homeless youth: Research, intervention, and policy."

Practical lessons: The 1998 national symposium on homelessness research. Washington,

DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development and US Department of Health

and Human Services. 1999.

Roman, Caterina G., and Jeremy Travis. "Taking Stock Housing, Homelessness, and Prisoner

Reentry." Urban Institute. Urban Institute, 8 Mar. 2004. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

Schaefer, Richard T. “Sociology Matters.” New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014. Print.

Shinn, Marybeth, and Beth C. Weitzman. "Research on Homelessness: An Introduction." Journal

of Social Issues 4th ser. 46.11 (2010): 1-11. Wiley Online Library. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.

Surowiecki, James. "Home Free?" The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 22 Sept. 2014. Web. 22

Mar. 2015.


The National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness. "Overview of Homelessness

In America." Homelessness In America. He National Student Campaign Against Hunger

and Homelessness, 2015. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

Tiny House Design. Tiny House Design. Tiny House Design, 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Trammell, Taylor Ivana. “Homeless in Detroit: Deep in the trenches of poverty.” Bridge

Magazine. The Center for Michigan. 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. "Housing First." Housing First. United

States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2015.

United States Census Bureau. “Detroit (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau." United

States Census Bureau. United States Census Bureau, 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

Doubrovski, Martina, Roberts 1 Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas ...€¦ · Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas...

Documents

Transcript of Doubrovski, Martina, Roberts 1 Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas ...€¦ · Oksana Doubrovski, Lucas...