0 Clash of the Egg-Heads and the Enlightened

I can't resist a fight. Especially when it comes to underdogs, or under-people, in this case, homeless families.

The US Interagency Council on Homelessness , the federal agency charged with spearheading our nation's efforts to alleviate homelessness, just posted a blog, astonishingly called "Taking Risks..." when addressing family homelessness. Read it, or at least skim it. You'll see what I mean, even if you're not from this wonky world of bureaucratic bullshit.

I picture these securely-housed, well-dressed women and men standing on the ledge of the U.S. Capitol, peering down, realizing how dangerous their position is. Then I picture the families I've known over the years, and the compounded risks they encounter every day. Who's in a riskier situation? Those who risk a "mistake" by thinking outside the tattered boxes that we've used as a pathetic national response to homelessness, or the families contemplating how to get a box to live in because their community lacks any kind of help for those without a place to live?

Ironically, or maybe not, my friend Ralph da Costa Nunez has a HufPo column today (11/7/12) too. He talks about a riskier solution, based on the abysmal reality of a dearth of affordable housing in this country. He thinks some families might be better off if they could stay in some sort of shelter environment--admittedly not the stark, in-at-night out-in-the-morning shelters in many communities. I agree with him, for reasons too numerous to list here and now.

Another friend of mine, Mattie Lord, with years of experience working with systems and shelters, recently shared with me a powerful testament to the absurdity, in some cases, of the federal approach to homelessness--something developed and promoted by the likes of the USICH. The staff at UMOM, a respected shelter/service provider in Phoenix, looked at the barriers that the hardest to serve families faced.

Let me tell you, the USICH approach to their theoretical path to end homelessness would be a big FAIL when it comes to the reality of many homeless families. USICH and friends are the same folks who have vigorously fought to restrict the definition of homelessness, eliminating the scores of families in motels and/or staying with others in precarious situations. I dunno, it's hard to trust their judgment when it comes to families/youth.

For me, the most powerful reality check when it comes to homelessness are the people experiencing it.

(Watch the 4-minute clip of My Own Four Walls, our acclaimed documentary. Purchase this $40 DVD and share it in your community.) 

They'll tell you that one-size-fits-all solutions don't fit. They'll put the URGENT in your thinking. They'll move you to take risks, because every day we diddle around and debate approaches means a baby sleeps in the cold, a toddler goes without cuddling, a student sits outside school doors, a youth contemplates grim possibilities, a parent fears failure, and we as a nation lose. What's risky?

HEAR US is willing to fight for those kids and families who've been ignored. Reality trumps ivory-tower-theories every time.

Join us on Facebook to keep up with our efforts and to offer encouragement! We need you!

Detail: Clash of the Egg-Heads and the Enlightened

0 It Really Is About the Children

These young children enjoyed the book Sarah gave them.

About 15 years ago, my friend, Pat Van Doren, started a project, It's About the Children.  Pat and her effort are now part of HEAR US Inc., our unconventional effort to prick the nation's conscience about the invisible homeless children and youth population.

Recently I've traveled coast-to-coast, filming for our new Littlest Nomads project. We're trying to sound the alarm about the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of little babies and toddlers growing up without a home during their most important time of development.

Sarah Benjamin, a McKinney-Vento funded homeless early childhood teacher and advocate from Long Island took me around to families in her program willing to let me "invade" with my camera. These kids, whose families had experienced various forms of homelessness (doubled-up, in motels, in shelters), benefited immensely by once a week "home" visits from Sarah and her colleagues. Despite high mobility, families had a strong link and continually received valuable resources, guidance and support to keep them involved in their toddlers' vital development. Witnessing the interaction between Sarah and the families touched my heart!

On an entirely different, disturbing level was the recent report of no increase of homeless persons during this brutal recession. Disturbing? You betcha! The National Alliance to End Homelessness reviewed the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) that Congress receives from HUD. I dunno. Leading the NAEH press release with No Increase In Homelessness Despite the Recession strikes me as a tad, um, delusional.

I've never had much use for the AHAR-generating Point-in-Time counts, the late-January best-faith effort to enumerate homeless persons in communities receiving HUD funding. One reason--they tend to totally overlook the invisible homeless family and youth population. And they ignore the many communities not receiving HUD funding. Even the Government Accounting Office took issue with these reports and related topics last year, citing rampant confusion in HUD's efforts.

NAEH staff, HUD and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness,
Congress and our President should be made to listen to this traumatized
baby wailing on this church floor (aka homeless shelter of the night).

Congress gets AHAR and feels "good" about HUD's progress. NAEH touting HUD's success is, in my humble opinion, disingenuous at best.

Homelessness--for adults and children--is traumatic and not acceptable. And the half-ass way this nation has been pretending to address it--the McKinney-Vento Act of 1987 signed into law 24 years ago--the abysmally under-funded, discombobulated, bamboozling "approach" to "ending homelessness," is a travesty at best.

Whatever M-V success--and some has occurred--is commendable. But don't think that these accomplishments have reached coast-to-coast or in any way solved the problem. And for every family or individual who gets the well-intentioned, sincere help returning to a place to call home, or gets an education, countless others fall into the vortex.

Homeless programs are an easy target for the ruthless budget-balancing-bobble-heads wanting to rob from the poor and give to the rich. But it doesn't have to be that way. 

I invite--no, urge--you to join me and tens of thousands of like-minded concerned Americans to urge President Obama to take a stand that will protect our vulnerable infants, children, elders, and others from the otherwise inevitable budget slashing. Co-sign Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) letter.

Seems to me the message Pat Van Doren created years ago is even more essential today. It's About the Children...or we'll all be sorry.

Detail: It Really Is About the Children

0 The Longest 100 Days--Now What?

I'd be the last one to fault President Obama for overlooking one very important task, reshaping this nation's homelessness policies. He's had a few things to do since moving into Pennsylvania Avenue.

My Facebook page just served a rare purpose: giving me good news. My quick peruse of my friends' posts led me to the one from Timothy Harris about the pending resignation of Phil Mangano, who for the past 7 years led our nation's deteriorating homelessness policies as the head of the Interagency Council on Homelessness.

I have heard PM speak a few times. I've read some fairly negative stuff (though I can't argue the point), including this blog. I've spoken with city officials who had to deal with him, much to their dismay. I've heard from providers who decry (privately, as not to jeopardize their funding) the Continuum of Care and Point-in-Time count, and the way they have to shift their focus to fit HUD's demands.

But the clincher was last summer when my video partner, Laura Vazquez, and I tried to interview him for our documentary about homeless families. This pre-arranged interview was in Springfield, IL. We shared our purpose and questions, so as not to "Michael Moore" him.

And, after he blew off our morning appointment, we had to follow him around all day. Finally, 13 hours after our initial time, having listened to way more PM than I would ever choose, we got him for a few minutes. As I wired him and he was sitting down, he said, "I sure hope you're not going to ask me about those kids..." or something very much to that effect.

Laura was much better than I could have been. "Yes, Mr. Mangano, that's exactly what we're here for, just as we had told your 'people' as we arranged this..." or something like that.

The interview as I remember was just a waste of time.

Me, I seethed as I stood behind the camera that was too expensive to toss his way. I couldn't quite control myself when, after the interview, he made a remark that insinuated that communities wanting to serve homeless families and teens could do so if they chose. I disagreed, knowing a bit how HUD funds programs, or not, depending on compliance with policies and priorities, stated and implied.

Then Laura disagreed with a remark he made about statistics. Between the 2 of us, we probably ruined his night. He stormed off, shouting at us as he crossed the hall to leave. We stood there, not really knowing what to make about the show of anger that far exceeded a typical disagreement.

It gave us plenty to talk about on the 3-hour ride back to DeKalb. It's given me plenty of food for thought, to the point when President Obama was elected and his Change.gov site was opened for people wanting to work for his administration, I submitted my application for Executive Director of the Interagency Council.

It wasn't that I don't like what I'm doing with HEAR US. Quite the contrary. But after seeing the mess that this country has made of trying to address homelessness and poverty I couldn't hold back if I felt I'd be able to do a better job. That's how I've gotten many of my jobs in the past--complaining about a wrong but being willing to do something about it.

The person being considered (or perhaps already decided) reportedly is someone tied to the "chronic homelessness" crowd that has been opposing our campaign to expand the definition of homelessness. Described by one of my colleagues as "Phil-lite," it's hard to imagine that this person would take a drastic step away from the current direction of addressing "chronic" homelessness of single adults. He's a big city guy...so his knowledge of rural and non-urban homelessness may be limited.

But the biggest reason for concern at this point is that whoever gets the job needs to expand this nation's focus on homelessness to include the millions of invisible families and teens. It's a big job.

Seems to me that our window of opportunity has at least 4 years (minus 100 days). Time's a-wasting, especially in the eyes of the children who have no place to call home.

baby crying photo courtesy of Pat Van Doren

Detail: The Longest 100 Days--Now What?