Article re: Capitol Striving to Define Homelessness

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)

I was listening to a report yesterday on NPR about using coupons when grocery shopping (I can't seem to find the link). I personally am not a coupon clipper - actually, I do sometimes clip coupons but I always forget to take them with me to the store. I also find that many of the coupons I find are not brands I use, or products in which I'm interested. I found the latter to be true when I looked into one of the websites (www.coupons.com) recommended in the report.

I'm wondering about your experience with coupons? Is this something you suggest to people accessing food services? Do you think it would actually save our clients money if they clipped coupons regularly?

Add your comments!

For those fans of The West Wing you might remember an episode that had a secondary story line about the way the federal government determines the definition of poverty. In 1963 Mollie Orshansky came up with a formula that was based on the amount families spent on food and we've been using it ever since. I thought you might be interested in reading these two articles, even if you're not a fan of the WW.



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/2F441FA6C68B57A8862574BB00143E2E?OpenDocument



http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080906/OPINION01/809060257



Also, here's the information about the book Mark mentioned in staff on Thursday. If you click this link you can read an excerpt from the book.



http://www.amazon.com/White-Mans-Burden-Efforts-Little/dp/0143038826/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220963081&sr=1-1