#teamaok My THIRD letter to the City of Daytona. Please place your comments below! Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, My name is Thomas Rebman and I am a Orange County Middle School Teacher that went voluntarily homeless for 30 days in the City of Orlando this Summer. As a result of this decision, I have learned that homelessness is a huge problem in Florida communities. Since returning from being homeless on August 3, 2014, I have done extensive research on this issue. What I have discovered in our state is shocking. It has prompted me to become a “Homelessness Educator” to help our communities understand the problems of homeless citizens and most important to be aware of the real facts on why citizens become homeless. I also want to aid cities in providing free consultation of the best models for reducing homelessness throughout the nation. Due to my homelessness journey, I have a perspective of the homeless population and I couple this with the latest proven research to recommend models that are proven for particular homeless populations and problems. Since I am doing this on a volunteer basis, I also deliver an outside perspective free of local or situational bias. The problems of homeless individuals are as varied as the communities in which they reside. The solutions to those problems are even more varied. Through an all-encompassing 4 month, 12 hour a day review of the latest research on homelessness and the most effective programs in solving the associated problems, I have discovered two basic tenants that are being followed. For ease of discussion I will label them: 1) Housing First or the “Empathetic/Acceptance” Model 2) Housing Ready the or “Tough Love” Disciplinary Model I am writing this letter to inform you that the current plan being discussed for Volusia Safe Harbor s not in line with research-based practices or models that have been effective in other US cities at reducing homelessness. The most vulnerable population, the chronically homeless, are not addressed in this plan. This population includes the homeless with severe mental disabilities, physical disabilities, those that are seniors or children. These citizens will never fit into a Safe Harbor Model and can only be effectively aided through Permanent Supportive Housing. This is the ONLY effective model for this population. Secondly, although Halifax Urban Ministries informed me there is a plan being formed for families, it is not contained in the current text being considered. Families comprise over 40% of the homeless population so this piece is essential in serving the community. Third, the consultant being considered and his basic 7 measures of homelessness transformation have been used in these Florida cities: St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Key West, Panama City and Sarasota. My review of the legitimate data concerning homelessness in these cities shows no appreciable reduction in street homelessness or overall homeless numbers. Next, the plan being considered is a “Tough Love” model. Which assumes that homeless citizens choose to be homeless therefore we need to discipline them so they choose to not be homeless. Housing first or the “Empathetic/Acceptance” model is the only scientifically proven model for helping the homeless (especially the chronically homeless). This tenant operates on the premise that people need the security of housing to have a better chance of achieving success in other areas. The old “shelter” approach to the problem of homelessness has failed across the State. The reason is that people experiencing the trauma of losing housing security need assistance, not discipline. In general, people respond to people helping them better than people ordering them to do things. I know this first hand. As a Teacher, I achieve great success by helping my students in the way they need help instead of having them all fit into a box of classroom rules that are punitive and therefore less effective. According to recent US Government statistics, there are over 600,00 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States. Over 1/3 of that number (222,197) are families, and the balance of 387,845 are individuals. The most vulnerable population is the “chronically homeless” which is 18% or approximately 110,000 Americans. These numbers are low in my estimation because they come from point-in-time counts, which are conducted, community-by-community, on a single night in January every other year. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires communities to submit this data every other year in order to qualify for federal homeless assistance funds. Most homeless families are able to bounce back from homelessness quickly, with relatively little public assistance. Usually, homeless families require rent assistance, housing placement services, job assistance, and other short-term, one-time services before being able to return to independence and stability. Young people often become homeless due to family conflict, including divorce, neglect, or abuse. A large majority of young people experience short-term homelessness, returning back home or to family/friends. Youth homelessness presents a particular challenge for several reasons, including the fact that there is very little definitive data on the population, as this group often doesn’t interact with standard homeless assistance programs or government agencies. Moreover, the solutions that have been identified for homelessness in general are often not applicable to minors (who are, for example, ineligible to rent an apartment). These special challenges mean that solutions to youth homelessness require innovation. Veterans often become homeless due to war-related disabilities. For a variety of reasons – physical disability, mental anguish, post-traumatic stress, etc. – many veterans find readjusting to civilian life difficult. Difficulties readjusting can give rise to dangerous behaviors, including addiction, abuse, and violence, which, coupled with the difficulties, can lead to homelessness. Preventive measures, including job placement services, medical services, housing assistance, and the like, can mitigate the risk of veterans experiencing homelessness. The “chronic homeless” are often the public face of homelessness. Chronic has a specific definition, involving either long-term and/or repeated bouts of homelessness coupled with disability (physical or mental). People experiencing chronic homelessness often end up living in shelters and consume a plurality of the homeless assistance system’s resources. It’s a common misconception that this group represents the majority of the homelessness population. Rather, they account for just fewer than 16 percent of the entire homeless population. The public just tends to notice them more because they are the most noticeable and visible. There is extensive a research that supports my hypothesis of the correct solution philosophy. Here are a few examples: “The two approaches vary in their engagement and admission practices. Traditional, high demand programs generally require that an individual be “housing ready”— maintaining sobriety, participating in treatment, agreeing to an intensive service plan— requirements that are contrary to the model as originally articulated by consumer advocates and researchers. The Housing First approach, however, is viewed as an “alternative to linear residential treatment” that offers housing without the condition of sobriety or services involvement (Tsemberis, 2010, p. 13), and is more faithful to the consumer- oriented model as originally proposed. This distinction in admission criteria is often carried through to the program’s service approach; services may be mandatory in the high-demand or linear approach and focused on issues other than housing, while the Housing First approach places primary focus on attaining housing, maintaining housing stability, and then, over time, assisting and encouraging the individual to participate in services.” Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop “The evidence base for Housing First, which was primarily pioneered in the homelessness field by Pathways to Housing in New York City, has demonstrated improved outcomes related to housing retention and stability, reductions in services utilization and associated costs, and improvements in quality of life (Tsemberis, 2010). Housing retention rates among the high-need population housed with a Housing First approach have been recorded at 85% at 1-year posthousing (Pearson, Montgomery, & Locke, 2007; Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004) and up to 80% at 2 or more years posthousing (Stefancic & Tsem- beris, 2007; Tsemberis & Eisenberg, 2005; Tsemberis et al., 2004). In addition to housing retention, individuals receiving the intensive, community-based services provided through Housing First programs often decrease their use of more expensive emergency and in- patient services. Several studies have found decreases in inpatient medical and mental health services during formerly homeless individuals’ tenure in Housing First (Gulcur, Stefancic, Shinn, Tsemberis, & Fischer, 2003; Hirsch & Glasser, 2008), as well as decreases in emergency care (Hirsch & Glasser, 2008).” Therefore, the philosophy of “Moving from Enablement to Engagement” and those 7 guiding principals are completely flawed and against all legitimate research recommendations. He stated in guiding principle 1 “For moral and fiscal reasons, homelessness must become an unacceptable condition that is not tolerated in the USA.” He further states that reward and punishment should be used to “aid” the homeless. As I stated previously in my letter, many people are homeless because of circumstances, not because they are guilty of anything. They do not want or need prescriptive guidance; they need support that is tailored to them as individuals. Isn’t this what would be most effective for you if you were homeless? In truth, the most notable successful outcomes are giving the homeless permanent supported housing using the “Empathetic/Acceptance Model”. In the area of housing stability as opposed to clinical outcomes, the implications for preventing recurrent homelessness among a high-need population are impressive for this model. In fact, a summary of data on housing stability outcomes for permanent supported housing programs indicated that retention rates in these programs are between 75% and 85% in the first year and up to one half of the residents remain in the program longer than 3 years. I challenge anyone to produce statistics for his 7 guiding principles that even come close to approaching this success. In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the homelessness programs in your community free of charge at anytime. My goal is to end homelessness through education and awareness. Sincerely, Thomas F. Rebman LT, USN Retired ME Reading, Stetson University “Homeless Teacher”
Posted on: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:59:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015