Excerpted from an article by by Peter Seidman
Pacific Sun, May 15, 2009

Editor’s Note: The following article addresses homelessness without addressing an increase in homelessless due to foreclosures. Just yesterday, I heard a knowledgable non-profit executive say that “many people think they brought this upon themselves.” The “they” she was referring to are homeowners facing foreclosure. 18 million homes are vacant in the U.S.; banks are walking away from them; squatters (sometimes the original owners) are living in them. Fewer than 10% of America’s families have received loan modifications from the billions they received. This is insane. What are the odds that 18 million people all made the same financial mistake? Weak, I’d wager.

All due respect to the non-profit executive . . . her presentation was excellent . . . hers was a naive comment. Fortunately, media and observers are realizing that there is more to this picture than millions of people screwing up financially. It’s also a convenient “fix” to the foreclosure problem: Blame the about-to-become homeless and turn ones back. As for not wanting to help people because their distress is “their fault,” well, what about individuals who drink too much alcohol, use illegal drugs, or even smoke cigarettes — those populations cost the U.S. billions in support services each year and they are all “by choice.” Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.

Prevention is cheaper than the cure!

” . . . Rather than increase services for the homeless, as a recent grand jury report calls for, the county may have to run hard just to stay in place.

“We’re currently facing such a dramatic change in our funding levels,” says Larry Meredith, director of health and human services for the county, “that it’s very difficult, especially with a [questionable] state budget that has really serious consequences. I think we’re going to be faced on multiple levels with ‘Sophie’s Choice.’” That’s the reality facing social services agencies across the country. How to spend limited—and declining—funds on programs for which an increasing need exists. Marin is no different.

Neither is the Marin Community Foundation (MCF). Despite its substantial financial position and undisputed largesse, resources are not infinite. “The Marin Community Foundation has been a source of enormous benefit to the homeless through the years,” says the April 13 grand jury report on the homeless. “But [the foundation] revamped its philosophy in 2006, opting to curtail funding for operating expenses of nonprofits.” The cuts, states the report, “were partially responsible” for the closure of Grove Lane, a facility in San Anselmo that “housed 80-100 homeless, abused, in-crisis or runaway youths.” Marin Family Action, an organization aimed at helping low-income residents, was scheduled to close, “but a belated grant from the foundation temporarily rescued it.” The report acknowledges that the foundation adjusted its funding philosophy “at least temporarily” and distributed $250,000 among 11 agencies as the need for services increased in Marin. “And in 2008, the foundation awarded another $750,000 to providers who work with the homeless.”

. . . Just providing shelter for the homeless essentially institutionalizes people who could re-enter society as fully functioning members with the help of a coordinated social-service program. But the grand jury report notes that some homeless people—those with drug and alcohol, mental or physical health problems—are incapable of taking part in a coordinated program. But they still need a place to sleep when winter weather hammers the county. They also need respite from scorching summer weather that can cause severe health problems. But most of the programs stipulate that participants be free of the very health problems that prevent them from being part of a coordinated social-service effort.

“The grand jury report captures the reality that [the county] has talked about the need to develop a strategy and increase services for almost 15 years now,” says Supervisor Steve Kinsey, who serves with Supervisor Susan Adams on the county’s Homeless Policy Steering Committee. “Unfortunately, we’re in an environment where we are having to make really difficult choices because of the ranges of fiscal pressures on the county, as well as the choices the community foundation has made to redirect their housing support away from entry-level homelessness and move further up the continuum toward workforce housing.”

Homelessness prevention, through the loan modifications we keep hearing about, would be an excellent fiscally responsible move, don’t you think? A San Francisco social service worker once told me that even the strongest of us would be a bit balmy and have health issues after one-to-two weeks of living on the street.