Brother, Don't Spare a Dime

[casey gilbert]

I was reading Newsweek the other week when I happened to stumble across a
very interesting article that brought forth an enlighteneing perspective
on the homeless epidemic. Christopher Awalt is a writer/editor
living in Austin, Texas who has been volunteering his time to various
homeless organizations. Through his intervention with the homeless, Chris
has formulated an interesting theory on the homeless. He indicates that
despite political rhetoric and "finger-pointing" within the realms of
Capitol Hill, "the group most responsible for the homeless being the way
they are is the homeless themselves." Chris goes on to explain that in
most cases the homeless have chosen, through their own reconnaissance, the
lifestyles they lead. "They are unwilling to do the things necessary to
overcome their circumstances." Chris does qualify this claim by giving
recognition to those wha are there because of "tragic circumstances."
Often times, these same victims of tragic circumstances are off the streets
in a matter of months. These same capable individuals who've found
themselves in an unfamiliar situation are usually able to bounce back and
move on with their lives. According to Chris, their not the problem. "For
every person temporarily homeless, though, there are many who are
chronically so. Whether because of mental illness, alcoholism, poor
education, drug addiction or simple laziness, these homeless are content to
remain as they are." Chris goes on to say that the homeless are able to
play the system in such a way that they can live their lifes in a
satisfactory state. He concludes the article by indicating that homeless
programs are worthwhile endeavors, but "without requiring some effort and
accountability on the part of the homeless for whom these programs are
implemented, all these efforts do is break the taxpayer." "Unless the
homeless are willing to help themselves, there is nothing anyone else can
do."

A few questions to ponder:
Does society owe these homeless individuals the right to waste their lives
away simply for the reason that they are unwilling to compromise their
state of contention?

How far do we have to go and how much money to we have to spend in order
to try and alleviate this problem?

Do you agree with the claims that have been stated within this summarized
excerpt?

Any responses would be most appreciated.

[Cindy Blank-Edelman]

I have been working in an emergency shelter for homeless women for
over a year and a half now. The conclusions I have formed are much
different from Christopher Awalt's (as summarized in the posting).

> Through his intervention with the homeless, Chris has formulated an
> interesting theory on the homeless. He indicates that despite
> political rhetoric and "finger-pointing" within the realms of Capitol
> Hill, "the group most responsible for the homeless being the way they
> are is the homeless themselves."

Certainly, all human beings are most responsible for their own
destinies. However, some of us have more obstacles in our way. A
person who has grown up in an impoverished household, with abusive
parents, a poor education, and no positive role models is still
responsible for her/his life choices. However, that person's
abilities to make those choices in a manner that will keep her/him
from becoming or remaining homeless may be less than someone else's
abilities.

> Chris goes on to explain that in most cases the homeless have chosen,
> through their own reconnaissance, the lifestyles they lead. "They are
> unwilling to do the things necessary to overcome their circumstances."

Although I respect homeless people's choices, and believe that they,
like all of us, are accountable for their actions, I realize also that
the homeless have usually had less freedom to choose their own
lifestyles. In my experience, the vast majority of homeless people are
victims of extraordinarily bad combinations of circumstances which
have culminated in their homelessness. Those circumstances, when
combined with a lack of community or support system, make many
"chronically homeless" people unable (at least for a while) to change
their situations. They are _unable_; I have rarely met homeless
people whom I perceived as able but _unwilling_.

> Chris does qualify this claim by giving recognition to those wha are
> there because of "tragic circumstances." Often times, these same
> victims of tragic circumstances are off the streets in a matter of
> months.

I would instead distinguish between people who are experiencing
immediate "tragic circumstances", who have a support system of friends
or family, and people who have experienced "tragic circumstances" in
the past which have left tremendous psychological or emotional scars.
The first group can bounce back easier.

> According to Chris. . . "Whether because of mental illness,

> alcoholism, poor education, drug addiction or simple laziness, these
> homeless are content to remain as they are."

Accusing homeless people of "simple laziness" is demeaning, insulting,
and ignorant. Anyone who implies that life in a shelter is "content"
or "satisfactory" is not truly familiar with the demands and
difficulties of shelter life.

> Does society owe these homeless individuals the right to waste their lives
> away simply for the reason that they are unwilling to compromise their
> state of contention?

Who is qualified to say that homeless people are wasting their lives?
What person who has never been homeless can call shelter or street
life a "state of contention"?

> How far do we have to go and how much money to we have to spend in order
> to try and alleviate this problem?

Financial efforts directed at transitional housing, education, and
other preventative measures are necessary. Throwing money at shelters
will never solve the crisis of homelessness; shelters are a temporary
measure.

It is far easier to blame homeless people for their situations than it
is to find solutions for the problems they face. It would be more
productive to set aside the question of blame, and deal with questions
of action.

-- Cindy