We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline

quote:

---

No, most of them are drug addicts or alcoholics who don't like the rules in the flop houses that will actually help them. The ones that will help them require them to quit drugs and alcohol and will help them to do it.

---

According to the sources I found, lack of affordable housing and poverty are the main reasons people become homeless:National Coalition for the Homeless Page Not Found - National Coalition for the Homeless

quote:

---

Two trends are largely responsible for the rise in homelessness over the past 20-25 years: a growing shortage of affordable rental housing and a simultaneous increase in poverty.

---

quote:

---

The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. A survey of 27 U.S. cities found that over one in four people in homeless situations are employed, a significant increase from 1998 (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2000). In a number of cities not surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors - as well as in many states - the percentage is even higher (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1997).

---

quote:

---

In the Institute for Children and Poverty study, 37% of homeless families had their welfare benefits reduced or cut in the last year. More strikingly, in Bucks Country and Philadelphia, PA, and Seattle, WA, more than 50% had their benefits reduced or cut?Among those who lost their benefits, 20% said they became homeless as a direct result. Additionally, a second study of six states found that between 1997 and 1998, 25% of families who had stopped receiving welfare in the last six months doubled-up on housing to save money, and 23% moved because they could not pay rent. (Institute for Children and Poverty, 2001).

​

Moreover, extreme poverty is growing more common for children, especially those in female-headed and working families. This increase can be traced directly to the declining number of children lifted above one-half of the poverty line by government cash assistance for the poor (Children's Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998).

​

As a result of loss of benefits, low wages, and unstable employment, many families leaving welfare struggle to get medical care, food, and housing. Many lose health insurance, despite continued Medicaid eligibility: a recent study found that 675,000 people lost health insurance in 1997 as a result of the federal welfare reform legislation, including 400,000 children (Families USA, 1999). Moreover, over 725,000 workers, laid off from their jobs due to the recession this past year, lost their health insurance. (Families USA, 2001).

​

In addition, housing is rarely affordable for families leaving welfare for low wages, yet subsidized housing is so limited that fewer than one in four TANF families nationwide lives in public housing or receives a housing voucher to help them rent a private unit. For most families leaving the rolls, housing subsidies are not an option. In some communities, former welfare families appear to be experiencing homelessness in increasing numbers (Children's Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998).

---

quote:

---

Addiction Disorders: The relationship between addiction and homelessness is complex and controversial. While rates of alcohol and drug abuse are disproportionately high among the homeless population, the increase in homelessness over the past two decades cannot be explained by addiction alone. Many people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs never become homeless, but people who are poor and addicted are clearly at increased risk of homelessness. During the 1980s, competition for increasingly scarce low-income housing grew so intense that those with disabilities such as addiction and mental illness were more likely to lose out and find themselves on the streets. The loss of SRO housing, a source of stability for many poor people suffering from addiction and/or mental illness, was a major factor in increased homelessness in many communities.

​

Addiction does increase the risk of displacement for the precariously housed; in the absence of appropriate treatment, it may doom one's chances of getting housing once on the streets. Homeless people often face insurmountable barriers to obtaining health care, including addictive disorder treatment services and recovery supports. The following are among the obstacles to treatment for homeless persons: lack of health insurance; lack of documentation; waiting lists; scheduling difficulties; daily contact requirements; lack of transportation; ineffective treatment methods; lack of supportive services; and cultural insensitivity. An in-depth study of 13 communities across the nation revealed service gaps in every community in at least one stage of the treatment and recovery continuum for homeless people (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998).

---

There's lots more info at the site...

Not at all. In fact that was my next question: What is the demography of these crimes? It has been shown that despite the glorification of Western violence in the nineteenth century, Eastern cities were much bloodier. Dodge City in 1888 had a lower crime rate than a number of Eastern cities. People in Dodge could openly carry guns. People in the East could not. Even so, there were more killings (per capita) in the East. [from an article I once read. Probably in a Gun Digest (unbiased source)]

Simply: Inaccurate. On the contrary, they are increasing. Another in a string of bold assertions. Can you offer corroborating evidence for any of this? I don't know where you live but it must be a very nice community. Or, perhaps you are not actually studying this in the field anymore. BTW, it's Loaves and Fishes, not "fishes and loaves."This was sent to me this morning by one of those pesky quasi-friends who daily clutters the email with forwarded funnies. Here is the first line of a rather long and humorous look at geographic truisms (some of them right on).

quote:

---

You Know You Live in California When...

1. You make over $250,000 and you still can't afford to buy a house.

---

Certainly no offense taken on my part. I was actually curious about what exactly you were referring to. As it turns out, I completely missed what "lesson" you meant, which I get now, so I'm glad you clarified.

Yes, of course I did, for the reasons that follow. I know the demographics of the people who actually live outside, on the streets, in Sacramento and in Tyler, Tx. They are as I described, and that is the description they give to me as well. It's also the description my brother gave to me of Los Angeles, where he has been homeless several times due to his own behavioral problems. That's great, but I don't know how that affects anything I said.My brother told me there's plenty of places to go in LA if you want to get off the streets. "Loaves & Fishes" posts signs in Sacramento saying to ignore the panhandlers on the street, because any of them can come to Loaves & Fishes for a free meal and a place to stay.A person in a shelter, taking advantage of their services, is generally on their way out of a "homeless" life.Been there, done that. Worked with people the churches turned away in Tyler, TX. Bought lunches and chatted with the homeless in Sacramento on a regular basis. My mom was practically an honorary member of the "happy camp," a group of homeless people who live in tents along the Sacramento river in downtown Sacramento. They are not overstuffed with people who lost jobs through some bad break and need help and will use that help to get back into society. If that's who was in there, they'd be almost empty, not stuffed. They're stuffed, because the few legitimately needy have to compete with the many who have chosen the homeless life out of enjoying it (not too many, but a few) or because they prefer homelessness to giving up their addictions.That's reality. I'm sorry so many people think it's mean or nasty to point it out. It's just true.

I've seen nothing from the DOJ or anyone else that says what you said. I went to your link and it gave stats back to 1973, as I've told you more than once. You'll have to come up with your quote and post it here, like everyone else does, and quit depending on everyone else to go search through web sites for you. I did look at your web site, and I saw nothing backing you up. Some things are obvious around us. Actually, there's no reason to believe the Justice Department said what you are saying.However, even if they did, then somebody's lying, because I gave you the stats as they were reported, and since they're up over 100% since 1960, then obviously they're higher than sometime that they've been reported. You haven't given one shred of data pointing any other way. Not following the news isn't near as bad as not being able to follow the news on a simple message board when it's pointed out to you over and over. You're complaining about my ignoring your imaginary data you haven't posted, while you haven't commented once on the exact data and references I've posted. I told you twice already and now I've told you three times. Must be something wrong with me; I haven't the slightest idea why I waste my time.

I think is part of the truth. A lot of things have changed since the 50's. Isolating the exact cause would be hard. Attitudes towards life have changed; the typical family structure has changed; even life in our schools have changed.Your "crowded" factor is also very valid.There are a lot of factors involved. I only disagree with the idea that the stats are wrong and crime might be down. Surely it's obvious that even the schools are more dangerous, that we lock our houses and our cars more, etc.I do agree there are a lot of causes for that.

Even though this wasn't written to me, apology accepted.I wish, though, that before you slammed me for not looking at your link, which I said a couple times that I had looked at, that you had looked at my link and your link yourself.

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you know anything about the demographics of the homeless?

---

​

I know the demographics of the people who actually live outside, on the streets, in Sacramento and in Tyler, Tx.

---

Really?Where have you been published?

quote:

---

They are as I described, and that is the description they give to me as well. It's also the description my brother gave to me of Los Angeles, where he has been homeless several times due to his own behavioral problems.

---

And where have all of these other people been published?You do understand the difference between anecdote and evidence, yes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The head of St. Vincent de Paul, Father Joe, was immediately out there laying claim to the cans. Before anybody from Campbell's could come by to make a decision, he was already saying that he was going to use the soup to feed the homeless at the shelters.

---

​

That's great, but I don't know how that affects anything I said.

---

Didn't you read my post? What do you think the point of that statement was? That despite the fact that we have a very aggressive group of people trying to provide services to the homeless, they are still overwhelmed. A minor accident happened and immediately the response was how this could be used to help the homeless. Father Joe is famous in San Diego for laying claim to anything not nailed down...and if he can pry it up, it isn't nailed down.You seem to have this vision that there are plenty of services for the homeless, if only they would avail themselves of them. That there's plenty of assistance to go around.You're simply wrong.So show me wrong like you did before. Where are your studies? You claim to be an expert on the situation in those two cities...so where are your studies? What journals were you published in?

quote:

---

A person in a shelter, taking advantage of their services, is generally on their way out of a "homeless" life.

---

Question: For every person in the shelter, how many people applied to get in?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And yet, despite the great efforts to make accomodations, the homeless shelters are stuffed. If you are homeless, it isn't like you can just go to a shelter and get a hot meal and a blanket. You need to stand in line for hours to get your number for the lottery.

---

​

They are not overstuffed with people who lost jobs through some bad break and need help and will use that help to get back into society.

---

Oh, yes they are.

quote:

---

That's reality. I'm sorry so many people think it's mean or nasty to point it out. It's just true.

---

Yeah, right. Come on, you're the expert. Where have you been published?You do know the difference between anecdote and evidence, yes?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Schraf/DrBill,Ok, I don't have any problems believing I missed wherever all these homeless people are being homeless at. I'm just one person.I made bold assertions, because I've spent a lot of time with homeless people. I drove across the US in 1984 when the military moved me from Alaska to Germany, and I picked up hitchhikers all the way. I even hung out with a group of homeless at a rest stop in Florida (learned to make "trail coffee") and on a dock in Biloxi, MS.I stopped and bought lunch regularly for people I saw in Sacramento, offered a lady with two children a meal and a place to stay.My brother was homeless for alcoholism (wife threw him out) several times in Los Angeles. He's the one who told me he'd hang out on the streets until he was ready to go into a homeless shelter and get help for not drinking. He told me there's plenty of places to go. (AA helped him as long as he kept going to their meetings, and he's been clean for a few years now.)I'll just assume I missed the shelters that are housing all these out of work people, because I haven't talked to homeless in shelters. I've talked to the ones on the street.I don't understand, though, the part on that site about people not being treated for addiction because they don't have health insurance. My brother's had no problems finding free treatment, and he wasn't even using the treatment very well.I'll look at the fact sheets on that site. I'm curious about this.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

I only disagree with the idea that the stats are wrong and crime might be down.

---

But crime is down. Not to as low a level as the 50s, perhaps, but it is down. In 2000, the total crime rate was 4,124. That was the lowest level since 1973 when it was 4,154. The violent crime rate in 2000 was 504.4 which was the lowest level since 1979 when it was 548.9. The murder rate in 2000 was 5.5...the average for the 60s was 5.5. So it looks like the murder rate is back down to the level of the 60s. The property crime rate was 3617.9 which was the lowest level since 1973 when it was 3,737.0.

quote:

---

Surely it's obvious that even the schools are more dangerous,

---

No, it isn't.And before you mention Columbine, I should like to remind you that all the school shootings that made the news were all in highly religious areas.

quote:

---

that we lock our houses and our cars more, etc.

---

Indeed, we do. But is that due to our perception that things are horrible or is it because it actually is?The average crime rate in the 60s was 2554.1. The 2000 rate, as stated above is 4160.5. That's less than twice the average level in the 60s. And as noted, that rate was decreasing.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I do want to point out that at least one thing I said based on my "anecdotal" evidence is quite true. That's from the link Schraf gave. This was at National Coalition for the Homeless Page Not Found - National Coalition for the Homeless.Overall, I think my main point is valid. People who live on the streets have normally chosen to do so either because they like it better (the few) or they prefer it to giving up their addictions (the majority).Those who go homeless because they lose their job generally don't stay homeless long, because they can get help. I just want to point out that families are not stuck in situations where they can make only one request. Being turned down at one shelter does not mean you are on the streets. You can try the next one and the next one. (It used to be you could also try churches, but most of them use some ministry that all of them give very small amounts of money to.)In other words a 52% denial rate does not mean that 52% of the families were denied.I was wondering, if these homeless people are people who lost jobs, why haven't I been able to find any of them, and why do the homeless people I do find tell me there's not many of them.My answer at this point, from the site I just looked at, is that those who lose jobs get help, just like I said, and aren't homeless long.

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Right...because you've actually done demographic surveys and thus you would know.

---

​

Some things are obvious around us.

---

Um, nothing is ever obvious. Personal experience never counts as evidence. That's why it's called "anecdote."That doesn't mean your personal experience didn't happen. It simply means that you have not taken the time to establish controls or identify bias.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

You are entirely correct that land and property values are pretty low around here. The idea of owning your own home is not so out of reach here as it might be in the bay area, where the house my parents bought for 75k in 1980 is worth over 300,000 now, even though it is a tiny 2-bedroom.

​

I didn't say that people can buy a home wherever they want in this country. I'm not imagining that I'll be owning a penthouse in New York in my lifetime, even if I wanted one.

​

I did say that a person willing to bear some hardships could still own a home in the US. I believe that's true.

---

I don't disagree with you, exactly, but I think my point is being rather lost.Sure, I could have bought a nasty, run-down house on the east side of Detroit next to a crack den as early as a couple of years ago.Of course, my husband and I would have had to dodge the gunfire and probably would have had our car stolen/home broken into and computer, stereo, TV stolen within the first month of living there. We would also have an hour long commute to school/job in the clean, safe city.The point was not that nobody could afford to buy a home somewhere.There's a reason property values are so low on the east side of Detroit. The houses there are shitholes in the middle of a war zone.The point is that to buy a home anywhere within a half hour commute to my job would cost us around $200,000.Since the economy is so crappy, however, I have seen real estate prices start to moderate a bit in town.For example, the lovely, large-for-the-neighborhood single-family home right next door to us went on the market, and their starting price was $375,000. They actually had to lower their price, because there were no takers, which is quite unusual around here.In Pittsburgh, the same property would have been no more than $200,000, even in the fanciest part of town.

This is an interesting discussion but somewhat of a tangent to our theme. That those who find themselves homeless may, with some effort, allay that grief is an aside. I am expecting that the fact they are homeless in the first place indicates they have difficulty paying rent. It would seem to go without saying that people who have difficulty renting a home are in no position to consider buying one.