On the Bottle, Off the Streets, Halfway There by Dan Barry
Read the Article at NYTimes.com
In lieu of the kick-off for Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week (HHAW), I thought I'd pick an article that directly addresses the issue. HHAW is something I've been involved with at Villanova University, and is a topic close to my heart, so I hope you find this commentary informative and interesting!
"They came to know the jagged pieces of each other’s bottle-shattered past, the broken marriages, the lost jobs, the ghosts. Daryl still sees what he saw in Vietnam. As for Ed, he was working on a fifth one day in his Iowa hometown when suddenly, there before him, stood his father and grandfather, telling him for shame. That both were dead only underscored the point."
This paragraph succinctly summarizes three MAJOR factors that influence homelessness: service in the military , addiction, and mental illness. On any given night,
200,000
veterans seek a park bench, a shelter, a cardboard box--anything that can shelter them from the sometimes loud, harsh environment outside(The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans). Studies have shown, despite popular belief, that is not the military service itself, but the increased propensity for addiction and substance abuse that causes their homelessness. About half of the homeless population is destroyed because of an addiction, mostly to alcohol. I drew the following diagram to portray the vicious, destructive cycle of addiction and homelessness:
It's also easy condemn the homeless for their actions, and say "Why don't they get help?" Well, once a person is already in that situation, it takes a miracle to receive any kind of help for their addiction. They often lack basic requirements, namely health insurance (most don't have it, even though they are indeed eligible for Medicare), proper documentation, basic transportation to a facility, and basic contact information.
"But why don't they just go to shelters and get help there?" Well, here are some reasons why:
1. 65-85% of the homeless "suffer from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, or some combination of the three,"(full article) greatly hindering the chance they'd land at a shelter.
2. Shelters are scarce if even existant in rural areas.
3. If they're aware of a shelter's location within a reasonable distance to travel, and they're in a state of mind that allows them to get there, they might be denied because of maximum occupancy.
Half the kids at my college don't make it back to their dorms on a typical weekend night of binge drinking, so it seems a bit callous (and hypocritical) to be harsh toward the homeless who don't make it to the often overcrowded shelters while they're intoxicated and/or enduring mental illnesses. It's especially harsh when you think that almost half of the homeless are the men and, yes, women too, who previously served for our country!
"The idea: provide them first with housing and meals, gain their trust, then encourage them to partake of the available services, including treatment for chemical dependency.
No mandatory meetings or church-going. And one more thing, crucial to all: You can drink in this place.
The $11 million project has endured the angry complaints of some that it uses public money to enable, even reward, chronic inebriates."
Granted the idea seems a bit fanatical at first, but I feel like opponents are looking at the issue too narrowly! Firstly, many shelters don't allow access for people who are clearly drunk (I wonder how many students would be homeless on any given night if the same were true at universities!). The shelter described in the article allows these poor people (in every sense of the word) to have stable housing. This is a basic human need-BASIC. Research has in fact indicated that housing stability is "essential for successful treatment and/or recovery." Once there, they are offered much-needed support services.
Think about it: what is the main difference between the 14 million Americans identified with alcohol issues and the several thousands/millions (it's impossible to definitively know) who are on the streets? The latter lacks both money for therapy and a social support system. It's no wonder why some people substitute the word "homelessness" with "disaffiliation", since they often lack meaningful human relationships--another BASIC need-- that other people possess.
Once they have these basic needs met, they have more of an opportunity to work on their issues. Personally, if I were on the concrete streets on cold night, and instead of rays of hope I saw only the clouds of mental illness, I'd be hitting that bottle myself. Jack, Jose, and I would be good friends. However, reducing these "trigger" situations (and believe me I think the harrowing experience of homelessness would count as a trigger for almost everyone) would allow them to tackle their underlying issues.
"It is difficult for an individual with limited financial resources to remain in stable housing. When significant proportions of those financial resources are spent on alcohol or other substances, maintaining stable housing becomes even more difficult. However, it is difficult for an individual to focus on substance abuse treatment when basic survival needs for food and shelter are precariously and unreliably met. The stress and danger associated with homelessness also may feed back into the cycle of relying on alcohol or other substances as a coping strategy." (check out the government publication here
What we spend money on is always controversial...what do you all think? I know I'm going to be labeled a crazy for this post!!
3 comments:
There is much food for thought in this article. First, that there is a cost asscociated with addiction/homelessness that we ALREADY pay via shelters, crime and jail, etc.
Second, that addiction grips the person, and escape from the ensuing poverty, jobless, homeless cycle becomes near impossible.
Third, that there is a pride and respect issue that a stable home environment provides.
The other side of the coin is that tax dollars, some from young people just starting out and others barely getting by themselves are providing an apartment (a single, I note). It can also fairly be said that there may not be enough incentive for counseling and job training without it being manditory, and where does the money come from to buy the allowed alcohol?
I do not have the answer, of course, but a good start might be to separate the drug/alcohol addicted people from the criminal prison population in a facility that has better accomodations, with medical and counseling services. There could be a "halfway house" system set up, with jobs and placement services.
The hard question, though, is what to do with the population that refuses to cooperate, and who are not as lucid, etc. as the men profiled in the article. Also: the seriously mentally ill-
Clearly, this is a challenging issue.
Liberals would have no problem spending other people's money to address this issue (taxes), but conservatives have no problem spending their own money to make a difference through charity. I believe an increased emphasis on charity giving would make far more of an impact than any sort of new governmental program to combat homelessness.
Great points, both of u. Hopefully Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week spurs some of that charitable sentiment!
(p.s. just want to point out that since implementation of these programs, costs have gone down w/ the other shelters, prisons, etc. It's still too early to tell if it's permanent, though...Charity does seem to be the best option from this point!)
Post a Comment