Travels Tell the Story...If Only HUD Would Listen

The map gives an idea of where I've traveled over the past 3 years in my quest to give voice and visibility to homeless kids. Although metro areas were unavoidable, most of my driving and stops centered on non-urban areas. I never lacked for homeless kids to talk to....

Trying to update the HEAR US website is one of those one-thing-leads-to-another projects. I realized how out-of-date my travel map was, so I took the time on this refreshingly cool Sunday afternoon to do a new one. It was a trip down memory lane....but I got distracted.

As much as I could wax on about the sights and events of these 64k miles, I found myself thinking of the current infuriating battle being waged in DC over who "deserves" to be defined homeless.

The primary focus of my journeys has been to learn about homelessness from homeless and formerly homeless children, teens and parents. I've talked to hundreds of homelessness experts from places that most people wouldn't be able to find with an atlas. These experts know because they have lived this uprooted lifestyle. They fuel my fire. Their stories, available on our HEAR US documentary, My Own Four Walls, will convince you that they are truly HOMELESS.

I've also had frank talks (because I'm not connected with government) with workers in the trenches--educators and service providers--who painted a frightening picture of how un/under-addressed homelessness is exploding in their communities. I'll stack what I've seen and heard, topped onto my 15 years of running shelters, against a Beltway bureaucrat or politician any day.

BACKGROUND
Some of us have been trying to get HUD to expand their homeless definition--and focus--to include families doubled-up and staying in motels because of hardship. A strong contingent--let's face it, they have the money and clout--have thrown everything they could at our little band of advocates. Barbara Duffield, NAEHCY's policy director, has been at the table, a brutal and draining task, deserving kudos and a huge raise!

But the battle (I'd like another word that doesn't sound like war, but I'm Thesaurus-challenged--nothing does this justice) continues. Sympathizers PLEASE let your thoughts be known! HEAR US has the PIGGIES' Project for this purpose. DO IT NOW!!

Here's the gist of the arguments of those who are opposed to changing the HUD definition of homelessness...

IT WILL INCREASE the NUMBER
HUD already uses an absurd under-count to assure Congress they're on top of homelessness. It's a point-in-time street count that providers will privately tell you is a well-intentioned sham. HUD says 750,000 people are homeless. They don't count families doubled-up, in motels, or otherwise not visible to the counters. Families don't want to be on the street --it puts them in jeopardy of getting involved with the foster care system. Ditto for homeless teens. Don't count them--and they won't count.

IT WILL OVERWHELM the SYSTEM
That's the point--the system is already overwhelmed. It has been--since the '80s. Since HUD has somehow reasoned that it's OK to ignore the existence of families and teens outside their "system" they shouldn't be surprised that we haven't gotten ahead of the problem.

Congress--under both parties--has been negligent in addressing homelessness, diverting resources to...well, that's too much to cover in this tiny blog. Congress, and the President, gives HUD marching orders.

Worth noting: The ignored homeless kid from 20 years ago--the beginning of the fed's "coordinated" approach to homelessness--is now in his/her 20s or 30s. Chances are that homeless child of the 80s is now a homeless adult of the 21st Century. That makes HUD's non-response a virtual feeder system for homeless shelters down the road.

IT WILL CHANGE the 'DEAL'
Take a faulty premise and build on it--where do we see that happening? "Mission Accomplished" comes to mind. Another argument that I can't believe someone would put in writing, "Changing the deal by considering a different group of people homeless could lead to some communities giving up.”

OK, this is where my travels have come in real handy. This "10-Year-Plan," a.k.a. the "DEAL," is a farce. I've seen scads of homeless adults--the ones HUD proclaims to prioritize--who have no place to stay because the shelters are over-capacity. They stand on street corners in cities and towns across the land. They get shoved out of one town by police and they go to the next. Ask around—does anyone think the 10YP is working (besides HUD)?

HUD's 10YP is like saying you're losing weight by not eating cupcakes. It ignores the reality that you're eating cake...and ice cream, etc. It's delusional. It's OK to be delusional about weight loss/gain, but not about children and teens living in highly-mobile, inadequate, insecure, and often dangerous environments.

ARBITRARY DEFINITION
Argh! I don't know how BD can sit in her chair when they say that our proposed definition is “arbitrary.” HUD decides they’re the expert in homelessness (OK, I'll grant them one thing--they've been a part of homelessness creation for long enough) and THEY can define it:
“A ‘chronically homeless’ person is defined as ‘an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.”
A ROOM IN THIS SEEDY MOTEL ABOVE WAS THE HOME FOR A MOM, DAD AND 5 SCHOOL-AGE KIDS. IT'S LOCATED IN DUPAGE COUNTY, IL, ONE OF THE MOST AFFLUENT COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY. THEY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED HOMELESS UNDER HUD'S DEFINITION. WHAT WERE THEY, VACATIONING??

Missing from their "enlightened" definition are kids and families (and non-disabled adults). Because many communities have NO FAMILY SHELTERS--Reno, Las Vegas, Las Cruces— come to my mind, but lots more would be on the list if I had time and space to compile it--families and teens turn to whatever place they can find: Sometimes motels. Sometimes a patchwork of friends' and family's houses. Sometimes a horrible combination that includes physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse. Typically their choices are places that are overcrowded, unstable, unsafe, unpredictable...but I guess it's OK for families according to HUD.

'REAL' HOMELESS FAMILIES are WORSE OFF
Anyone who would use this argument would be giving away their naïveté in the world of homelessness. Most families who bounce in and out of homelessness get the experience of all forms of homelessness--doubling up, turning to shelters, being turned away from shelters and going to motels, living in vehicles, and then recycling through this devastating circuit.

Seems to me that the millions of our nation’s homeless families would validate my premise given a chance to be heard. But the people responsible for prolonging homelessness will have the comforts of home to insulate their ignorance as homeless families look for a place to call home.