[About Us][Affordable Housing Bulletin][CLTs][Co ops][Day for Housing][Fair Housing][HANDS!][Housing in a Hurry][Housing Journal][Join Us!]
[Landlord Tenant Code][Links to Friends][Living Wages][Manufactured Housing][Plans][Publications][Realities of Poverty][Tenants Rights][Search]
 

This detailed study was produced by the Center for Community Development, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy of the University of Delaware, and issued in November 1996. Its 143 pages, in addition to appendices, makes it the most thorough study of its kind since the publication of Homelessness in Delaware by the Center in 1988.

Questionnaires and interviews were the principal methodology. Homeless persons living in shelters and shelter operators and staff throughout the state were formally surveyed. Every effort was made to allow for complete candor, including the absolute confidentiality of all participants. The study is impressive in its scope and attention to detail, and in its effort to be objective and caring at the same time. It challenges the community to respond to homelessness in a realistic way. It also expresses genuine concern for the real opinions of homeless persons, and includes their thoughts and attitudes as significant parts of the study.

The differences between the responses of shelter providers and residents is interesting. On page 47, for example, 23 of 53 providers list "addiction to drugs and/or alcohol" as the first or second "biggest cause" of homelessness for the clients they serve. On the next page, however, when asked about their perceptions of how to reduce homelessness, the two highest priority ways were "increase supply of affordable housing" and "more jobs paying livable wage" (28 out of 53). When a similar question was asked of homeless persons, their response, again by a wide margin, was that "employment" was the number one problem they faced. The primary reason for their "current homeless episode" was cited by homeless adults living in emergency shelters in Delaware (1995) as "can't find affordable housing." This reason was given as number one by 46.3 % of respondents.

The study presents several interesting items in its major findings and conclusions. It found an increase of 145 % in the number of homeless persons between 1984 and 1995, with the highest rate among children under 18 (189 %). It noted that this escalation took place under a period of intense economic growth, and notes that while the economy has prospered for the country as a whole, homelessness has worsened at the same time. Other major conclusions are that homeless persons are very poor, and that this poverty among the homeless has only increased as the general prosperity of the nation has gone up. The report cites housing affordability, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, and a planning and policy strategy for the future as priority needs in addressing homelessness (in that order). The final conclusion is most interesting:

The future of homelessness in Delaware and the nation is clear. If a healthy economy cannot be counted on to reduce the problem, the solution is for society to provide financial, social, and educational programs to those with the potential to at least partially overcome their problems and limitations, and continuing financial and social support to those who, because of the seriously disabling condition or circumstance, cannot meet their own housing and other needs.

This report is impressive in the scope and integrity of its research, and close attention to listening. Its credibility is high especially because of the large amount of information gained directly from homeless persons. It is truly a statewide approach, and every effort was made to collect the best possible information, even given the difficulties presented in such a study. I know from my own friendship with Abby Miller-Sowers that she, as graduate research assistant for the project, was meticulous in making sure every detail would be addressed and every inconsistency questioned.

I must, however, go on to say that I cannot help but be disappointed by the limitations and narrow focus of its conclusions. Perhaps it was determined that the data was sufficient only to warrant the limited inferences about the nature of homelessness and suggested solutions to the problem. I feel, however, that the study was influenced too much by the prevailing tendency to re-define homelessness as a problem which primarily requires rehabilitation or recovery on the part of homeless persons—an individual pathology, requiring a continuum of care. Focusing as it does, the larger questions of a more radical and fundamental nature are sometimes mentioned, but otherwise largely neglected in the report.

My first observation is that, while the report continues to mention lack of affordable housing and the disappearance of adequate paying jobs for persons of limited skill as significant reasons for homelessness, the strategy recommendations for the future clearly emphasize treatment programs, therapeutic interventions, and change of "personal attitudes" on the part of the homeless. Although it cites "poverty" as a leading factor which almost all homeless persons have in common, it makes no effort to address the reasons or root causes for this, or what might be done in the State of Delaware to reduce or eliminate it as a reason for homelessness.

Second, the report never grapples with what seems to me to be fundamental problem: a living wage for persons in low or limited skill jobs. Combined with the lack of affordable low-income housing this disastrous trend in our society is alarming. With the boom in full-time, minimum wage, no-benefit occupations (often service oriented), it is possible for a person to remain homeless even while working hard, sometimes indeed holding two jobs. The study also never raises the question of why young homeless men and women are such a phenomenon in our society. The report does not ask about the diminished hopes and expectations of these young people—how they have so little opportunity and cannot look forward to reaping any of the benefits living in an affluent culture. Are we not yet aware that for an ever growing number of persons, the American dream has become a thing out of reach?

Finally, and most glaring in its omission, is that there is little mention of the prevailing, deep-seated racism and class and sex discrimination in our society which contribute both to extension of poverty and also to homelessness. Even though the report reveals the shocking statistic that African Americans are grossly "over-represented" among the numbers of homeless in Delaware (e.g. 60% of adults in emergency shelters, p. 86), the issue of racism is never once raised as a possible contributing factor. This is in spite of the fact that the report alludes to the change in the general picture of the "public's image" of homelessness over the last several decades from being largely middle-aged white males to the present predominantly African American, young, and with a high percentage of women (55% of homeless adults in shelters).

The report reveals its own limitation in this area when it observes, "increasingly, homelessness is being viewed as caused by a combination of structural societal and personal characteristics which interact in ways not fully understood" (page 13). This is indeed not only the view the study suggests is held by society, but is also that which has been adopted by this report. Unfortunately, this emphasis on social details and personal rehabilitation is too short-sighted to make the changes necessary for homelessness to be ended. While I believe with all my heart that anyone who wishes to help ought to be committed to helping homeless persons as individuals, the facts of our common life cannot and must not be ignored. To do so imperils the future of us all, for who would want to live in a society in which such misery is allowed to flourish unchecked among those who are least competitive and most vulnerable?

Class discrimination is also never mentioned or addressed. There is strong conviction among many in our culture that those who are poor, especially the destitute, are somehow less as persons. It is a subtle belief, not readily mentioned, yet very prevalent. There are some who blatantly connect poverty and immorality, asserting that the poor are in their situation because they "don't work hard enough," are wasteful, or have other dissolute ways (among these: alcoholism and other substance abuse, emotional distress, even, sadly, mental illness). The fact is that these limiting factors exist at all levels of society and are largely overlooked or discounted among the more affluent. For example, heads of corporations, even leaders of major world powers are well known to have serious problems with alcohol, yet it does not seriously affect their station in life. Why must a homeless person be judged in this way and thus given no real opportunity to earn the basic requirements of food, clothing, and shelter necessary to stay alive? The study makes no mention of the need for more margin in our society.

As early as 1987, in a widely circulated article by Peter Marin (Harpers Magazine, Jan. 1987, pp. 31-49), the question of the lack of margin in our society was raised. By recognizing the fact that in a competitive society not all can perform and succeed as well as others, why cannot we as a people commit ourselves to the kind of community and social organization which allows even its poorest and least advantaged members to live a life of dignity? A community in which all, including the most vulnerable, can support themselves by their own means? Why must we view the problem as one of charity rather than justice? Persons of means and property owners are given tax write-offs called "deductions" for interest and other expenses related to land and home ownership. These are social subsidies. The same holds true in Delaware for large banks and corporations which also receive generous entitlements. Why cannot we make allowance in the same way for the less influential—maintaining, for example, an adequate supply of decent, affordable low-income housing, as a matter of right and justice? In a society in which property is owned and exploited for profit, it is inevitable that the very poor will, without intervention of some kind, be gradually excluded from home ownership, and eventually even from ability to rent. The market will always adjust itself to those who are able to pay the most, shutting out the poor even in the best of times let alone in leaner seasons. If we are to end homelessness, we must have more margin for those of limited income to live.

The report approaches the problem of homelessness from a perspective of fixing. It suggests a balanced approach which includes therapy and rehabilitation for homeless persons, addressing the "conditions or behaviors which make the person susceptible to homelessness." The second solution is to fine-tune the culture or environment to reduce the potential for homelessness in already "susceptible" individuals. This conservative approach almost sounds do-able. One could easily ascertain from this report that given Delaware's (and the nation's) current state of prosperity and economic well-being, the State ought to be able to eliminate homelessness rather easily. Unfortunately, it ignores the more disturbing trends of our society—particularly the growing gap between wealthy and poor, with a shrinking working/middle class, the disappearance of solid, career type employment for persons of low or minimum skill, and the dangerous and growing problem of decent, affordable housing for persons and families of limited means—a crisis affecting not only the very poor, but also many aspirants to the traditional middle class. How many working/ middle class young adults and families are doubled up, forced to continue living with parents in the affluent suburbs because, even though employed, they cannot afford the high price of their own housing?

When this situation affects the poor, this doubling or tripling of families in a single living unit is considered unacceptable because of limited space regulations. Homelessness is a growing social problem which, although we remain in denial, is already affecting the whole of our society. The report is short-sighted when it equates homelessness only as a problem of the very poor. The underlying conditions of our culture are creating a form of homelessness even for those of moderate income, although it remains that the poor indeed are, as usual, most disastrously affected.

A comfortable policy, swept into fashion with the Clinton administration, is to end homelessness under a continuum of care. Such approach seems realistic and workable, especially in the era of compassion fatigue, middle class backlash, and welfare reform. The tragic and inevitable result is that homeless people must bear too much of the full weight and burden of solving the problem of homelessness, while shelter and homeless service providers are put into the role of fixers. As in any program, the impetus to model achievement will produce success stories —examples of individuals and families who have been helped by the system, their lives dramatically altered. Their attainments allow us the luxury of an illusion: one by one we can correct homeless episodes, and thus end what we thought was an intractable social problem. But substantial change must mean that the community itself has allowed a suitable, readily attainable margin for the person to live with dignity by their own means. Any solution which emphasizes personal therapy as a resolution will only allow us the fantasy that we have solved the problem of homelessness.. It may feel good in the short run, even allowing agencies and helpers to feel a sense of real accomplishment for those rescued, but it has malicious connotations. It implies there is something woefully wrong with a person who is homeless at the bottom of our social and economic pyramid.

One of our regular visitors at Clairvaux Farm is an 86-year-old woman. In our conversations over the years, I can't remember how many times she has remarked, "my husband and I were married in 1929, when the depression began. We struggled to raise a family in those early years in great poverty. We were poor, often we didn't know where our next meal would be coming from or where we would be living, but we didn't know we were poor!" If they were experiencing genuine poverty, how is it that they did not consider themselves to be poor? We have been trained in our culture to be ashamed of being poor, to understand that poverty and loss of dignity and self-worth go hand in hand, and to be poor is to be helpless as well as hopeless. Yet, none of these equations is correct. Any of the preceding assumptions may be true of persons or families at any level of society. Why is it just accepted that, among the poor, they are universal and the usual cause of their debilitation? To be poor is no shame. It is not wrong or dishonorable. Simply having a low income, in a society as great as ours, should not put a person in danger of being homeless.

This project is a worthwhile and dedicated effort. I can only wish that it would have challenged us at the point of the larger, abiding issues and thorny problems which perpetuate homelessness. Thus allowed to remain comfortably in place are the strong, albeit often underlying, prejudices of public policy and opinion based on race, sex and class, the polarization of persons and groups of persons into rigid and unchangeable social and economic strata, the breakdown of neighborhood and community foundations and structures especially necessary in a culture as commercialized and consumer oriented as ours, and the puzzling lack of advocacy for struggling families and individuals who scramble to survive at the very edge of our society.