Homeless,

Homelessness - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly Podcast

12/9/2019

I'm ashamed to say that most of what I thought I knew about the homeless issue was wrong. We have just launched our first podcast and chose this issue as one of the more pressing and depressing issues of our time. We wanted to explore the question that, irrespective of your politics, how could some of the wealthiest communities on the planet not solve this problem?
I'm not going to replay the podcast and what we learned here (simply go to the ‘Podcast’ page and your can listen to it there). Suffice it to say most of the homeless are not 'bums' or mentally ill. In fact, about 65% of our homeless population are neigbors and compatriots who have fallen on hard times. That's hardly surprising when about 70% of Americans dont have $400 saved for an emergency. The good news is that the situation is improving, and there are very succesful programs out there like Haaven in Los Angeles (see link below) who are delivering shelter & support for less than $10,000 per bed while the public sector solutions cost over $500,000 a bed! The bad news is that despite the valiant and heart warming efforts of many, the system is still not fit for purpose and unless we adopt innovative ideas like Haaven, never will be!
Please do listen to the podcast. There's tears and laughter, 'you can't be serious moments', harsh words, uplifting stories and a happy ending. It will leave you thinking differently about homelessness.
Here are the links to the people we interviewed in the show, including the volunteers and charities that you could support by doing something as simple as donating some care packs of things like socks, tooth brushes & toothpaste; or offering to help them at feeding stations.
https://www.pasocares.org/
https://www.haaven.org/
https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/

Here are some facts and figures, as well as a summary of what we learned:

Nationally, in the last 10 years, the number of homeless has dropped from about 650,000 to 550,000 – that’s about a 15% reduction, despite the fact that the total population went up by nearly 10% in the same period. So overall, as a % of the population, the % of homeless dropped by 10%.
Nationally, more of the homeless are ‘sheltered’…..up from about 60% to 65%; and the number of homeless families is down almost 25%, and Veterans by nearly 40%.
Locally in SLO County, there are about 1500 homeless, which is up from 1200 last year but down from about 2200 in 2013. These numbers are all estimates, because almost by definition homeless people are difficult to count, but the general trend is in the right direction..although let’s not forget that still means that nearly one out of every 30 children in the US is homeless!
The causes of homelessness are, in order of most prevalent 1. Lack of affordable housing, 2. Unemployment, 3. Poverty, 4. Mental illness 5. Substance abuse.
Only about 35% of our homeless are mentally ill or drug users – what I call the emotionally homeless. The rest are economically homeless – the “there but for a little bit of bad luck or tough times go I” kind. They lost their job, broke up with their partner, were kicked out of their home or evicted.
Up until the 1960’s most of the mentally ill were left languishing in poorly run psychiatric hospitals (think Jack Nicholson in The Shining). Between the 1960’s and the 1980’s about 400,000 people were kicked out of these institutions. This policy was well-intended, but at the same time funding for housing and community services was cut significantly resulting in a perfect storm of unintended consequences. This was compounded by the median value rising almost 400% between 1980 and today….the perfect storm became a tragic tsunami….all because of decisions taken by politicians.

In terms of what we learned, we can summarise like this:

The typical homeless person isn’t a bum, a drug user or an alcoholic, or someone who is mentally ill. In fact, they are more likely to be someone we went to high school with or worked with.
That the ‘Homeless First’ program initiated by the Federal Government and numerous state and voluntary agencies across the country is actually working in reducing numbers over time BUT the problem seems to be in our face more because of the very inflexible and regimented process that deters some of the more emotionally challenged homeless people from seeking help.
Not only is the Housing First system very regimented & inflexible, it is also VERY EXPENSIVE and because of time and money constraints not scalable enough. Charities like Haaven can house people for $5000, whereas State back systems can cost up to $700,000 a bed.
That lack of Affordable Housing is a very real problem, especially here in California and in the major metropolitan areas.
Every volunteer we spoke to says a major issue is a distinct lack of political leadership, which was borne out by us as only one of 7 local and state politicians we asked for an interview agreed to talk to us.

6 Comments

Ed Bogusch

1/18/2020 02:39:23 pm

Hello Clive, you may be happy to know that I finally decided to listen to your entire podcast, not once, but twice.

Having listened and done some further research on the subject, there’s so much more I can say to you. I won’t be able to say it all right now, but would like to focus on a few points.

First, your claim that homelessness is getting better in SLO County is incorrect, as I asserted during our previous conversation. I found it somewhat interesting that even Mark expressed skepticism over that statement as well, saying that he didn’t feel like it was getting better either. In your podcast, you referenced the “Point In Time” survey as one of your sources. So, let me point you to a column written by someone to whom you may have spoken. Her name is Becky Jorgeson, founder of Hope’s Village, a nonprofit working to provide housing and other services to homeless residents of San Luis Obispo. About a year ago, she published a column in the Tribune which included the following statement: “Please don’t believe for a moment that we’ve reduced homelessness in our area. There weren’t enough volunteers to cover all areas during the ‘Point In Time’ homeless count two years ago, nor this year.” She didn’t write that because she agrees with me on how to solve the homelessness situation in SLO. Far from it, she and I probably agree on very little, other than the point she just made. Her statement helps to point out that statistics and studies can lead to false impressions and bad policy.

Second, I saw a “man on the street” interview last night that was very interesting. The reporter spoke with a homeless man in Austin, TX. He explained that he had moved from Houston to Austin because Houston apparently has a policy of jailing homeless people. So he moved to Austin because, he said, “they leave me alone.” Essentially, he was saying that Austin is a welcoming city for the homeless, which probably explains why Austin is beginning to resemble SF and LA. Also, his statement implies that he wants to be left alone so as to camp out on Austin’s streets. In other words, he doesn’t want to be sheltered, a point that you acknowledged in your podcast as true of some (many?) homeless people. But my point has been that these are the very people who are the most visible and are causing citizens like me to feel frustrated and angry over the growing prevalence of homelessness. They are a blight on any city in which they live. So, a program like Haaven would have no effect in taking someone like this guy off the street. Equally important, homeless people will go wherever they feel “welcomed.” Some will go to another city if that city leaves them alone; others will go to a city where they will be given whatever benefits they’re looking for. As you said, we need to “end the demand, not supply it” (which, ironically, PasoCares takes the opposite approach by “servicing” the homeless).

Third, I laughed when I heard one of your guests (the Editor of Paso Daily News) say that “the solution to homelessness is housing.” That’s like saying “the solution to poverty is money” or “the solution to cancer is a cure.” How profound! The issue is HOW to transition homeless people into housing. Furthermore, providing “housing” (shelter) and providing “affordable housing” are entirely separate issues, requiring different focuses and approaches. Haaven provides “housing” and appears to be a pretty good program for the few that it has helped. But it’s a charity, started by a single wife/husband team. You called it “scalable.” I suppose that’s true, but only if there are more people like them willing and able to replicate what they are doing. Even if there are, there’s literally nothing to prevent programs like it from attracting homeless people (perhaps from out of town or out of state) to the areas where such programs exist.

Forth, according to a Tribune news article last year, in Seattle, 80 percent of those living on their streets suffer from substance abuse issues. In California, meanwhile, it’s supposedly only 30 percent. Gee, now that California has recently legalized marijuana, I wonder what’s going to happen.

Fifth, you talked about people living paycheck-to-paycheck. I just read a good article on this subject (https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/living-paycheck-to-paycheck-savins-todd-kunsman), a piece I could have easily written myself because it explains many of the things I did when I was younger, which allowed my wife and I to move back to this area after living several decades in Texas. Personal responsibility goes a long way toward preventing homelessness!

Yes, the solution to homelessness is homeless prevention, st

Ed Bogusch

1/18/2020 04:12:21 pm

I guess there's a word limit, so here's the rest....

Yes, the solution to homelessness is homeless prevention, starting with educating people on how not to become homeless and clearly describing the “tough love” they will receive if they ever do. To be clear, I’m not referring to the temporarily homeless (whom you call the “economically homeless”) or those who deserve support (e.g., homeless veterans). I’m referring to those who CHOOSE that lifestyle, the ones who are the most visible and troubling manifestation of homelessness.

Enough said (for now).

Ed Bogusch

1/18/2020 04:29:00 pm

I forgot to include this as part of my first point…Mark asked you why it doesn’t seem like the situation is improving, and you opined that it’s because “bad news sells.” Logic check: Then why wasn’t the bad news selling even more several years ago when the homeless situation was supposedly worse than it is now?

Clive Pinder

1/19/2020 02:03:35 pm

Ed, thanks for taking the time to listen to the podcast. For purpose of completeness, this exchange continues one you began on the Nextdoor platform when I asked that you make comments, most of which were contradicting or disagreeing with the thesis of the podcast, after listening to the complete podcast. As we live in close proximity, I also offered to meet you in person, an offer you declined.
Rather than take your points one by one, I really want to focus on the overall thesis and spirit of this podcast. I subscribe to Disraeli's observation that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.", so while while we have a principle of using data to support our conversations, we also recognise that data can be misconstrued or even abused.
However, in recognition of your counterpoints I will make the following points:
1. I can find no data that contradicts the fact that the number of homeless today is significantly less than it was in 2007 and that the overall national trend is still downwards. Nor have you presented any. If you can find some I would appreciate seeing it. While I accept that personal observations are relevant, we work on the principle that straw polls of one are helpful, not definitive.
2. Related to our position that while personal experience suggests otherwise, the data suggests a downward trend, given that the US population has grown by 8% since 2007, if you look at the number of homeless as a % of the total population, which is after all a more meaningful statistic, the data undoubtedly shows a downward trend.
3. I agree with you that a number of homeless people who choose to live that lifestyle and should not be a burden on the state if that is their free will. (I have covered a proposed solution for that in previous shows). However, the data again shows that this segment is a small minority and that the economically homeless are the clear majority.
4. The reason why so many people who live on the streets have substance abuse problems is because shelters refuse to accept those under the influence. While that is understandable if no other reason than the safety of others, given that a large number of homeless suffer from SAD and mental illness, which are often connected; it is not productive let alone empathetic to just discard that segment as 'deplorables'.
5. Haaven, and other similar models, are scalable as they are operated as social enterprises that can even be franchised. Just because you are not making a profit or surplus, does not stop this model paying salaries and providing a living for its owners and operators; and they are signficantly more efficient than public sectors solutions.
But that is the data, and what hope listeners take away from all iSOS podcasts are two principles, that are mutually dependent. The first is to keep an open mind and be willing to change it. The second is to avoid the toxic nonsense of today’s ‘we’re right and anyone who disagrees with us is wrong’ conversations. Our purpose is to "challenge our readers, guests and listeners to think differently about the existential issues of our time. Looking for sanity in the world, we look beyond the political grandstanding of the 'left' and 'right' to try and find common sense."
I hope that, having listened to podcast now, your 'takeaway' reflects that purpose, and even if we disagree, we are neither closed minded nor dogmatic in that position.
Finally, if you have any concrete solutions, we'd love to hear them and we'll include them on the follow-up podcast we hope to have live in the next few weeks.

Ed Bogusch

1/19/2020 03:38:46 pm

To say that homelessness is down because the number of homeless people as a percentage of the total population is down is a ridiculous argument. The BEST you MIGHT be able to say is that while the population is trending upward, homelessness is trending upward, but at a slower rate. You know, it is possible to observe and feel two sensations at the same time: (1) I see more traffic congestion on city roads and highways, and (2) I see more homeless people on sidewalks and parking lots. No one cares whether one is getting worse or better relative to the other. They care about a negative trend and how it affects them.

If you start with the premise that you must find a faster increase in homelessness than population growth in order to accept my proposition that homelessness is getting worse in California and in SLO County, then it is not surprising that you found “no data that contradicts” your premise. Besides, homeless counts are all ESTIMATES and the actual numbers are generally assumed to be much higher. Even Becky Jorgeson seemed to acknowledge that fact.

One of the basic disconnects in our conversation is that you seem focused mostly, if not solely, on the “economic homeless,” whereas I am focused mostly, if not solely, on the people I see urinating and defecating in public areas, pushing shopping carts crammed with all their worldly possessions, camping out on sidewalks, back alleys, creek beds and parks, openly doing drugs, and panhandling. As I repeatedly say, these are the ones who are the most visible and troubling manifestation of homelessness. They may or may not be a small minority of the homeless population, but they need to be dealt with, sooner rather than later. You mentioned that you covered a proposed solution in a previous show. I thought this was your first podcast? What did you propose?