I recently read a New York Times article discussing the possibility of the Capitol redefining our nation’s current definition of homelessness. As of right now (and the past 20 years) it stands as “people living in the streets or in shelters.”
The House and Senate want to include in the definition people who are “doubled up with friends or relatives or living day to day in motels, with money and options running out.”
Still further, the House is debating whether to include in the definition of ‘homeless’ people fleeing their homes due to dom. Violence and people who are going to lose their housing within 14 days.
Also, The Senate is proposing a bill to include people forced to move three times in one year or twice in 21 days.
The issues that arise when proposing change of the definition of homelessness to include more people is that no additional funding is planning to be allotted to support theses proposed changes. This is a major issue considering our current economic slump.
The Education Department’s definition of homelessness includes ‘children in families that are doubled up with other families or in motels.’ During the ’06-’07 school year 688,174 children were identified as homeless based on the definition of the Education Department but only 32% of the children were eligible for services because the rest did not qualify according to HUD’s definition.
While I believe we should help everyone we can, I do not believe I support the proposed change. It is a very sad and devastating decision to keep the definition at status quo and neglect others who are in need, but if we spread what resources and funding we have too thin, we will be not serving anyone well. If people are doubled up with other families or relatives it might not be the most comfortable situation, but at least they are not living on the street, and I believe people living on the street or in shelters should be our first priority in serving.
As representative Barney frank said, “When there is not enough money to cover ‘all of the above’ you have to do priorities.”
What do you guys think? I would love to read your comments/thoughts.
(Leigh)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I am in agreement here. While I feel that the proposed definition would more adequately define the problem, it would also change the focus and scope of services in an already insufficiently funded set of programs.
If a broadening definition brought with it a broadening of funding I would support the proposal. But as it stand right now, I agree that services would be spread too thin and those that need the most help may run the risk of not receiving services at all.
This is really a tough issue. I face people everyday who are living with family and friends; they look at me, puzzled, when I tell them that in fact there are not homeless, even though we all know they are, essentially without a home. I appreciate the fact that Congress is taking notice of a large segment of the population we serve, however, we won't be serving anyone well if more money isn;t allocated to homelessness prevention initiatives.
I would encourage you to look at the proposed legislation (S - 1518 and HR 840) to see the details of the debate. And if you have a strng opinion, call your representatives in Washington. Let them know what you think.
Clearly there are other serious issues at hand which are occupying Congress so it remains to be seen whether there will be action taken this session.
While I agree that people in shelter have a perceived "greater emergency" there are many instances in which individuals and families cannot access shelter resources.
Take for example a single father with minor children. There are no resources in the Holland Community equipped to provide emergency shelter for single fathers, unless he decides to be separated from his children. These families must then resort to living with family and friends in order to keep their family intact, and thereby would not qualify for homelessness assistance programs
Post a Comment