A-Infos (en) [Fwd: NY 'Cares' for Homeless]

[Graeme Bacque <gbacque@arcos.org>]

________________________________________________
     A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
           http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________

(I am forwarding this FYI only - the source is far from unimpeachable
but it gives an indication of what's happening in NYC. The Government of
Ontario is looking at this as a model for future policies towards
homeless persons here.)

(The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) is sending a delegation of
activists to NY this Sunday for several days  to investigate this and
other issues further - I will submit more info as it becomes available.)

---------forwarded message---------

 > NEW YORK CITY'S "CONTINUUM OF CARE" PROGRAM FOR THE HOMELESS
 >
 >
 >In late November of 1997 Robert Yamashita of the Housing Division
 >and Alice Gorman of the Public Health Division of the City of
 >Toronto had the opportunity to examine New York City's Continuum of
 >Care Program for the homeless.
 >
 > (here are a few highlights from their report, which follows below)
 >
 >       All agencies that were visited used psycho tropic medication
 >       as basic support for all their clients.
 >
 >       "The city will undertake a more aggressive outreach effort to
 >       homeless people ...and provide direct placements into treatment
 >       programs".
 >
 >       "Eligible applicants who are mentally ill, alcohol or substance
 >       abusers, unemployed ... will be referred from assessments
 >       centers to providers of rehabilitative treatment. The provider
 >       will develop a treatment plan with which the individual is
 >       expected to comply as a condition of continued eligibility."
 >
 >       Private companies have their own agents to keep their strips
 >       clean and free of "vagrants".
 >
 >       All clients are medicated as an essential part of their
 >       program. Most of the clients have trusteed their incomes to
 >       the church.
 >
 >
 >
 >OBSERVATIONS OF NEW YORK CITY'S
 >CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM FOR THE HOMELESS
 >
 >January 1998
 >
 >GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:
 >
 >1) There is little recognition of the dignity, will, inherent
 >   skills and diversity of the individual persons experiencing
 >   homelessness.
 >
 >2) There is no recognition of the strength and potential of the
 >   community of homeless people (there is no Community Development
 >   component).
 >
 >3) There is no systemic analysis about the root
 >   societal/economic/globization causes to homelessness.
 >
 >4) Community development, or any non-judgemental approach that
 >   starts with where people are at (eg. harm reduction, self help,
 >   CED) are antithesis to the Continuum of Care (C of C)approach.
 >
 >5) The program definition of "Continuum" means a linked system that
 >   the individual must move through in designated timeframes as
 >   opposed to our interpretation of a "Continuum" as a set of options
 >   to be used when and if the person chooses.
 >
 >6) The program is based in the belief that homelessness is
 >   essentially the result of individual mental illness, addictions and
 >   unemployment.  The personal responsibility tenets of the program
 >   are imbued with judgements of laziness, weakness of character, lack
 >   of accountability, criminality and sickness. The clients are almost
 >   exclusively African and Hispanic - Americans.
 >
 >7) The solution to homelessness is a coordinated treatment program
 >   complemented with a time limited private sector based housing
 >   subsidy program. The assessment aspects of the program are limited
 >   in their diagnoses by the narrow levels of C of C responses.
 >
 >8) The program is very expensive, time limited and based in zero
 >   tolerance.
 >
 >9) The program was a precursor but is presently the implementing
 >   program to the national Personal Responsibility Legislation.
 >
 >10) Public and private sector support is garnered through immediate
 >    and tangible results eg. no visible homeless population,
 >    perceptions of crime reduction, increased business and tourism.
 >
 >11) The program supports a new layer of unqualified private sector
 >    service providers.
 >
 >12) The existing community based agencies have changed their
 >    localized/client centred approach in order to be part of
city/state
 >    wide program.
 >
 >13) The clients, patients or customers are expected to assimilate
 >    into mainstream jobs, housing and society and be independent of
 >    any program/subsidy support within a 2 year time frame.
 >
 >14) The localized nature of homeless persons existence has been
 >    dislocated in the transportation of individuals out of their
 >    neighbours and in some cases out of the city.
 >
 >15) Visible homelessness has been criminalized and the police form
 >    the frontline to the points of entry into the Continuum. This is
 >    empowered by law in Mayor Guiliani's "Quality of Life" act.
 >
 >16) By state legislation all homeless services must have full
 >    security measures including metal detectors and personal searches.
 >    This has effectively eliminated anyone who might exhibit
 >    anti-social behaviors.
 >
 >17) The people who are newly homeless and have had mainstream
 >    experience can move through the system easier. It is this group
 >    that derives the greatest benefit from the C of C and supports
 >    their success data.
 >
 >18) This is a relief system and in concert with personal
 >    responsibility legislation eliminates any concept of entitlement.
 >
 >20) All agencies that were visited used psycho tropic medication as
 >    basic support for all their clients.
 >
 >21) After the assessment all clients enter into "performance
 >    contracts" which commits them to the treatment plan and time
 >    frames.
 >
 >22) Overnight in 1994 this system was imposed on the existing
 >    homeless support network.
 >
 >23) There is no long term commitment to the C of C program.
 >
 >24) The Department of Homeless Service actively destroyed Community
 >    Economic Development projects.
 >
 >25) If clients pay for their stay in the hostels they do not have
 >    to participate in the performance contracts.
 >
 >26) This is a top down system, the homeless and frontline staff
 >    have no input into policy, administration or review .
 >
 >27) The program overtly discriminates between those who are deemed
 >    deserving and those who are not.
 >
 >CONCLUSIONS:
 >
 >1) Heightened awareness of value of the dignified and sensitive
 >   approaches that are continuously evolving in the City of Toronto.
 >
 >2) Our programs and projects are sucessful, long lasting and
 >   sustainable because they recognize the role of homeless persons,
 >   the need for local solutions and the critical role of skilled
 >   frontline staff.
 >
 >3) We already have a highly developed and sophisicated systems of
 >   a Continuum of Support and a Community Development Continuum.
 >   However we are by nature reluctant to recognize and celebrate our
 >   made at home solutions.
 >
 >5) We recognize the patience and time required to resolve complex
 >   human issues.
 >
 >6) We recognize the diversity of the homeless population and need
 >   for a rainbow of supports and alternative approaches.
 >
 >7) We recognize the need for innovations and social experimentation.
 >
 >8) Our open ended systems of services have evolved overtime as
 >   opposed to imposition of a closed system. As such our services can
 >   adapt and remain relevant to local and personal needs as they
 >   change.
 >
 >9) Our services and the homeless have in large measure described
 >   clients needs.
 >
 >10) We also provide services under the component labels (outreach
 >    assessment, transition and long term housing), however; the
 >    underlying principles and style of delivery are dramatically
 >    different.
 >
 >BACKGROUND:
 >
 >In late November of 1997 Robert Yamashita of the Housing Division
 >and Alice Gorman of the Public Health Division of the City of
 >Toronto had the opportunity to examine New York City's Continuum of
 >Care Program for the homeless.  The visit was setup through the office
 >of Toronto Mayor Barbara Hall to the Deputy Commissioner's office of
 >Lisa Diaz at the Department of Homeless Services, New York.
 >
 >New York State is the only state that is constitutionally (Article
 >17) obligated to "take care of the needy". Social advocacy
 >organizations forced the state through the courts to enforce the
 >constitution. In the 1970's the vast number of armouries were used
 >to house persons experiencing homelessness. Mayor Koch during his
 >tenure as the Mayor of New York city enacted a "consent decree"
 >which guaranteed shelter for all persons that needed it. He also
 >created the "Homesteading" program to help rebuild abandoned
 >buildings where the homeless squatted. This program was squashed by
 >the introduction of the C of C program.
 >
 >At the same time the state created a law known as the "winter
 >alarm" with a 90 day annual limit. Part of this legislation allowed
 >the police to establish general patrols to pick up homeless persons
 >who were demeaned to be " a danger to themselves".
 >
 >In 1992 Andrew Cuomo Chaired the Commission on homeless, known as
 >the "Way Home". It recommended the establishment of the "Continuum
 >of Care" (C of C) program.  Subsequently as the Director of the
 >national Housing the Urban Development Agency (HUD) Cuomo
 >established a housing subsidy program to assist cities in procuring
 >private housing rental stock for persons participating in the C of C.
 >
 >The other important player in the development and evaluation of the
 >C of C both locally and nationally is Dennis Culhane. He is the
 >academic resource and policy developer that has been instrumental
 >in the promotion of the concept of the Continuum of Care.
 >
 >In May of 1994 Mayor Guiliani created the Department of Homeless
 >Services (DHS) to work in co-ordination with an array of clean up
 >initiatives. The department was to experiment with the C of C
 >approach and be reviewed biannually. Guiliani was re-elected in
 >1997 on his dramatic record of cleaning up the city.
 >
 >
 >THE CONTINUUM OF CARE
 >
 >PROGRAM TENETS
 >     "It recognizes that government has the responsibility to care
 >     for the needy ..."
 >
 >     "...but it also expects homeless people to take personal
 >     responsibility for their lives."
 >
 >     " New Yorkers expect drastic reform of New York's program for
 >     assisting homeless people ... and that a system replaces
 >     temporary solutions with permanent ones".
 >
 >     "a system that provides emergency assistance to those who
 >     truly need it, assesses their needs within a limited time
 >     frame, and refers them, where appropriate, to services to meet
 >     those needs and end their homelessness."
 >
 >
 >PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
 >
 >1. Implement a comprehensive eligibility determination process and
 >   ensure that scarce resources will be available to those most in
 >   need.
 >
 >2. Implement a full continuum of care including outreach,
 >   prevention, shelter diversion, eligibility determination,
 >   assessment, emergency shelter, access to needed services, and
 >   access to permanent and supportive housing.
 >
 >3. Make available flexible client-based services.
 >
 >4. Ensure short stays in emergency shelters.
 >
 >5. Develop small, community based programs.
 >
 >6. Mutual responsibility.
 >
 >7. Better management.
 >
 >8. Changes in Shelter Capacity.
 >
 >9. Improved government colloboration.
 >
 >10.Strengthen the Chief Executive's (Mayor) responsibility.
 >
 >PROGRAM COMPONENTS
 >
 >1. "The city will undertake a more aggressive outreach effort to
 >   homeless people ...and provide direct placements into treatment
 >   programs".
 >
 >2. "The primary means of access to the adult shelter system will
 >   be through new emergency assessment shelters. The goal will be to
 >   assess the individual's needs and move him or her through the
 >   emergency system within 90 days. Those who refuse a housing
 >   placement, or who have sufficient funds to make their own living
 >   arrangements, but refuse to do so, will be ineligible for continued
 >   temporary housing assistance.
 >
 >3. "Eligible applicants who are mentally ill, alcohol or substance
 >   abusers, unemployed ... will be referred from assessments centers
 >   to providers of rehabilitative treatment. The provider will develop
 >   a treatment plan with which the individual is expected to comply as
 >   a condition of continued eligibility. "
 >
 >4. "Adults who refuse placements in programs offering rehabilitative
 >   treatment will be referred to a municipal residence facility. These
 >   facilities will have staff to reconnect residents to treatment or
 >   other rehabilitative programs".
 >
 >5. Access to housing is critical to ensure that stays in costly
 >   emergency shelters and residential treatment programs are as brief
 >   as possible.
 >
 >(An important component of the outreach function and the major tool
 >to criminalize homelessness is Mayor Guiliani's "Quality of Life "
 >by-law. It is an enforcement plan that gives the police
 >unprecedented power to remove the homeless from all public spaces.)
 >
 >PROGRAM COSTS
 >
 >For the adult C of C program the annual budget of 369 million
 >dollars (half a billion CDN dollars) serves approximately 15,000
 >people. In the absence of any public health care these funds are
 >used for basic health services. Generally the homeless have very
 >little access to any services and this program attempts to provide
 >these.
 >
 >The city staff were reluctant to provide any data or cost figures
 >for the program.
 >
 >PROGRAM OUTCOMES.
 >
 >There are no more visible homeless persons on the streets of New
 >York city. Even in semi public spaces in subway tunnels or makeshift
shanties the homeless are no longer visible. The very few
 >that are seen from time to time shuffle along at a manageable pace,
 >because they are no longer allowed to stop.
 >
 >Private companies have their own agents to keep their strips clean
 >and free of "vagrants". The public supports the program because
 >there is a perception of a safer city. However the coersive and
 >often violent nature of the police and community outreach
 >initiatives (mean sweep)is now experiencing a public backlash.
 >
 >CONTINUUM OF CARE IN PHILADElPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA AND SOUTH BEND,
 >INDIANA
 >
 >We examined the Philadelphia Continuum of Care in 1995 and had a
 >thorough presentation of the same program in South Bend Indiana at
 >a Homeless workshop in October 1997. It is apparent that C of C is
 >a national program in the United States. Although the National
 >McKinney Act of 1985 provided the enabling legislation for
 >community development, state sponsored homeless initiatives it is

>no longer funded and is superseded by the Personal Responsibilities
>act of 1997. As in Canada the national government has devolved
>responsibilities for the administration of social programs to the
>state but the controlling  legislation remains a national one.
>
>
>RECOMMENDATION:
>
>City of Toronto's existing made at home CONTINUUM OF SUPPORT and
>Community Development Continuum need to be recognized, supported,
>and enhanced.
>
>The City of Toronto, its community agencies, volunteers,
>institutions and programs have worked very hard over the past 25
>years to create both a system of support and the framework for
>community development initiatives. These programs and projects
>recognize the need for supports as they are required and the
>dignity of homeless persons to develop self help alternatives.
>It is imperative to begin identifying both the existing services
>and their linkages in order to formalize a Continuum of Support and
>a Community Development Continuum. Although these systems are
>essentially different in nature, style of delivery and temporal
>qualities they nonetheless cover the spectrum of approaches that
>provide short and long term solutions for people experiencing
>homelessness.
>
>                           APPENDIX A
>
>
>                  SAMPLE PROJECTS DESCRIPTIONS
>
>                        JOHN HEUSS HOUSE
>
>This is a day shelter program in the heart of the financial
>district. It is managed by the Trinity Church and serves 106
>designated/referred clients. There are approximately 30% white
>clients, the rest are black. The church has their own outreach
>services and additional church shelters. All clients are medicated
>as an essential part of their program. Most of the clients have
>trusteed their incomes to the church.
>
>
>                       THE CAMBER ARMOURY
>
>This is a Brooklyn based project in a former armoury. It is managed
>by a local merchants association and serves 70 women with long term
>pyschiatric problems. Like many of private sector providers they
>are in a tall learning curve. Only now after 2 years is there a
>sense of a stable service with appropriate staff. The clients are
>referred to this service from city wide assessment centres and come
>from the region at large. Most the recreation programs are
>volunteer delivered. High, airport style, security for everyone
>entering and leaving facility.
>
>
>               FORMER BELLEVUE PSYCHIATRIC CENTRE
>
>This former psychiatric institution has been converted for several
>large Continuum of Care projects. All services are contracted.
>
>1. General shelter
>
>This a general shelter for 850 adults over 32 years of age with no
>outstanding warrants. There are no young addicts permitted. Shelter
>clients must be used to camping. Most(1000 people) are directed to
>Camp La Guardia, a former prison 50 miles northwest of the city.
>Clients choose this option to get away from the city and the
>required activity of many shelters. Camp occupants are bused from
>the rural shelter and processed through this centre for all
>services.
>
>2. The Assessment Centre
>
>This is one of 3 city wide assessment centres. Private transport
>companies move people to vacancies in other shelters. After 4pm
>public transit tokens are provided.
>
>3. Volunteers of America
>
>This is the largest agency in New York state. This projects
>provides 46 clients with long term mental illness, a 6 month
>program to prepare them for housing. These are people who are
>"hostel resistant" and require high levels of psychiatric support.
>Low demand facility with no medications forced on clients. They
>receive 3 meals a day and have full time access to 5 case managers.
>
>            SALVATION ARMY, BORDER AVE. VETS CENTRE
>
>This is the largest Vets centre in the US. It serves 410 short
>homeless vets. Contract with Veterans Affairs and the city
>Department for Homeless services. Successful in finding 300 full
>time mainstream jobs for clients. Forty percent return to centre
>over time. It has a staff of 10 full time social workers and one
>family counsellor. The DHS identifies this as an Employment Program
>Shelter.
>               The KINGSBRIDGE ASSESSMENT CENTRE
>
>This is in one of the largest armouries in the USA ( approximately
>six football fields in dimension). Until 1994 it the largest family
>hostel in New York City. Presently it is managed by a organization
>as a primary assessment centre and a transition hostel for 40 women
>(all African-American). They are all medicated and have a 90 day
>limited on their residency before moving on to permanent housing.
>
>          THE PALACE - BRC HUMAN SERVICES CORPORATION
>
>This is a satelite project of BRC. It is a former Bowery flophouse
>that housed 650 men in very small (4x7) cubicles. Presently it is a
>60 bed shelter and support single men for up to 6 month whilst they
>reconnected to housing and jobs. They have an Aids support program,
>employment search program, and a day drop-in. The Executive
>Director is a disenchanted former Commissioner of the Department of
>Human Services who understood the inherent flaws in the Continuum
>of Care system. This project is member of the System, however it is
>trying to bridge the gap between the System and street realities.
>The project and its staff recognize that the people who benefit the
>most from this approach are the newly homeless who have the least
>difficulty in regaining a mainstream existence. The longer term
>homeless with more complex issues reap the least benefit and in
>most cases cannot participate.
>
>                   E-Quality of Life Campaign
>
>State legislation provides funding and support for advocacy and
>watchdog organizations to scrutinize the C of C. This organization
>was started by homeless people and is staffed largely with
>volunteers. This organization educates the homeless about human
>rights violations, structures legal responses, monitors sweeps, and
>tracks hidden shelters. They are also affordable housing advocates.
>Provide support to the very small group of community agencies
>willing to question city policies and C of C.
>
>In their observations many of the community outreach agency have
>been pushed to perform and act more violently than the police.
>The "Eligibility Verification Review" system has been useful in
>redefining homelessness to fit the C of C program and produces
>successes. The state Govenor Burtaci has enacted a bill relieving
>all shelters of their need to conform to Fire, Building and Health
>Codes.
-- 
*******************
<gbacque@arcos.org>
<http://web.arcos.org/gbacque>
(#2226799 on ICQ)
++Question and challenge *all* human 'authority'++
**************************************************

     ****** A-Infos News Service *****
  News about and of interest to anarchists

Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
             with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info      -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section