Why the Homeless Have No Chance

Jeffrey Grunberg

Description

Comprising a number of short essays, 'Why the Homeless Have No Chance: The Dismantling of Success' documents a sociological journey through the homeless services industry and describes today's wrong-headed approach to this lingering social problem.

Told from the vantage point of thirty years of personal experience helping homeless people in a number of settings, these adventures largely took place in midtown Manhattan in the early 90's. Over a seventeen-year period, our singularly successful approach was dismantled "slow-mo" by way of political advocacy and media complicity. We had decried the housing approach, frustrated that it was going nowhere, instead calling for employment programming. However, what is referred to as "The Board," the putative head of the homeless industry, would have none of it. We were accused of heinous crimes, all made up. For it all, even after those charges were proven to be "fanciful," the damage had been done - we were taken down and our funding went right into the coffers of The Board, while the homeless, unemployed again, were back on the street.

Never told were the reasons for what one investigator called our "unparalleled success." Why were we able to bring thousands of homeless men and women indoors? Why were we able to help so many into employment? What can be done to stem today's tide of homelessness?

Our programs drew the attention of a number of important New Yorkers, pro and con among them, but in the end, they came to a halt. While this is a story that was partially documented in the media, staccato style, still it has remained a story never fully told.

Sujets

• Social Science
• Sociologie, société et politique
• Homelessness
• Poverty

Informations

• Publié par: eBookIt.com
• Date de parution: 01 juin 2020
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781456635046
• Langue: English

Extrait

Why the Homeless Have No Chance:
The Dismantling of Success
 
Our focus on employment rather than housing got everybody indoors and caused our demise.
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Jeff Grunberg
Copyright 2021 Jeffrey Grunberg,
All rights reserved.
 
Published in eBook format by eBookIt.com
http://www.eBookIt.com
 
 
ISBN-13: 978-1-4566-3504-6 (ebook)
ISBN-13: 978-1-4566-3575-6 (printbook)
 
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the author. The only exception is by a reviewer, who may quote short excerpts in a review.
Dedication
What ’ s worse than no cash-on-hand and none coming in? The landlord turns the key, but the real culprit is the disconnection, which defines insanity. As one shelter resident told me, “ Man ’ s got to have people behind him. ” So, while maybe it is true that no man is an island, it ’ s relative. Some people are offshore, cut off from the main, not exactly floating. This book is dedicated to them.
Author ’ s Note
This book is entirely based upon real events. As a participant-observer in the center of the story, ultimately a target of false narratives, when under attack I ’ d oftentimes be reactive, so be it, but I was there. I was there as the participant witness and most importantly, no one can tell this story better, or with more truth. A lot of people did a lot of good things. Some didn ’ t. Most of the bad guys ’ names and some descriptive details have been intentionally changed, because having had their chance to talk already, they went first, they don ’ t deserve even the negative notoriety that revealing their true identities might bring. Why give them another opportunity for subterfuge?
~ ~ ~
Dark is not just the number of homeless people and those on the brink, but also the absence of an “ open wide your hand ” approach to their unmet needs. Instead, they are treated more like their problems are a given, as in “ the poor you will always have with you. ” Once in the system, what are they supposed to do? Act retired? Sit in repose, that ’ s what, in wait for the housing to come. The housing that should by all rights come. However, the wait has proven to be indeterminate, and nobody just wants to sit around. I know that for a fact. Dark also is the shadow cast upon the homeless services industry, the gaze of those in charge, their ways of seeing from which certain expectations emerge. More proof that this social problem is socially constructed.
One
What had been taken as a given became unreliable. Turns out, you really can ’ t know a book by its cover. For example, just because our social service programs, aimed at helping homeless people off the street and into jobs and housing, came under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's office, the Office of the City Comptroller, the City-Council Speaker ’ s office, the Inspector General of the New York City Department of Homeless Services, a federal prosecutor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development known simply as “ HUD, ” a leading homeless advocate, and a number of more private investigations, including sizeable scrutiny, New York City style, from among countless dailies and weeklies, newspapers across the color spectrum, blue, red, etc., none of them following their mandate for black and white news, was not proof that we fell short of attaining what one came to call “ unparalleled success ” in finding housing and employment to homeless adults. To the contrary. Only that there were some who wanted our work stopped. Immediately. Retroactively? No good deed goes unpunished, they say. More sarcasm: Guess we never should have gotten all those people indoors.
~ ~ ~
By our fifth year, right before the worst of the attacks began, with an employment focus, we helped place hundreds of people into jobs and hundreds more into affordable apartments. For those not wanting professional help, not even from our on-site professional staff, we still enrolled them as members and offered use of a self-help library. We set ourselves up, in part, to be there for people who wanted to use our facilities minimally, and/or to remain anonymous if they wished. Clearly, some were in hiding – we allowed for that. To almost everybody ’ s liking, we had metal detectors at our front doors and cameras in the stairwells, and we intervened to break up every argument or fight, altercations you ’ d expect when hundreds of exhausted people mill about often at wit ’ s end. We had great food, three squares, home-cooked on site and served in a sit-down cafeteria, small round tables, tablecloths, capacity for personal storage in the back, bathrooms, and showers too. We had so many homeless people coming to us that we soon became the largest multi-services drop-in-center in the country.
~ ~ ~
We were open 24/7, year-round. Importantly, we were co-ed. Even more so, half of our staff consisted of formerly homeless people earning living wages, not the prevailing minimum wage of $3.80-4.25 but twice that, plus paid sick days, paid vacation, and health insurance benefits too. We had a medical clinic, a mental health unit, and a sizeable social services staff. This consisted of a dozen or more social workers and case managers, plus sometimes up to fifteen part-time graduate school interns. There was plenty of support staff, and employment trainees, not to forget a couple of hundred volunteers from the corporate community each year as well. Busy place.
~ ~ ~
Throughout the building, people were experiencing homelessness, or homelessness withdrawal, there being a veritable mix of personal development levels and success, Norman Mailer ’ s “ wad ” caught up in a slew of interactions, right there, in front of each other. They could self-define differently from what they might be labeled, and be defined differently by each other, their stratified peers. Spontaneous cluster sampling?
~ ~ ~
In the tall hallways winding up six flights towards the roof, above us all, were stunning murals of Roman archways and tall vines, muted colors with bright blue skies. And on the roof, adjacent to the rooftop vegetable garden, was “ The Human Being. ” It was the work of New York artist, Steve Cosentino. Look at it online; it ’ s beautiful. Majestic and poignant, 35 feet wide by 65 feet long, that big, not only that, but it was also made from discarded clothing! A portrait of a man looking upward, a shout-out to the buildings all-around us, their occupants looking down on our rooftop, on us, of course. The building below that spectacular roof, that was us, was abuzz.
~ ~ ~
Well, too bad … it shouldn ’ t have been us. First, we had no business getting them indoors where they ’ d be hidden from view. That ’ s what they said. Much worse, it wasn ’ t what we did as it was who we were. And who was that? Some of the richest of New York ’ s rich were our underwriters, our founders, and they made their money as landlords and property owners. Holy shit! Holy shit is right, not just a figurative enemy, but to many in the business of helping the homeless, the figurative enemy! In truth, in the back of mind always, explained away repeatedly but still lurking, were remnants of this same thought. I could feel its logic, an emotional position really, like holding every doctor guilty for the mal-practicing ones, these property managers represented all the wealth-building horrors ever committed by the worst of them. However, the sociologist in me wanted to focus on the relationship in this midtown instance between extreme wealth and extreme poverty. It was their concentration of midtown wealth that empowered some to try to prevent us from continuing with our outreach work. I took the decision to work for these property owners because this sentiment was unproductive in terms of helping anyone. It was somewhat hypocritical too, given that every one of our detractors sought similar financial support from many of the same people. Symbolic Interactionism. Microsociology.
~ ~ ~
Not to discount financial competition by any means, there was yet another angle to take. Their chant, “ housing, housing, and housing, ” hadn ’ t delivered, yet still they got their funding. To their own underwriters, indeed to the American public and much of the world, they sold the idea that they knew just how to resolve homelessness. “ Housing, housing, housing ” pushed all the right levers. But it has been forty years. By both policy and inclination, they are still wanting everybody to forever-wait. Not fair.
~ ~ ~
It might have hurt us that Newt Gingrich liked us. No understatement. It triggered immense antagonism. Hey, don ’ t blame us for that. He was on his way to becoming the Republican Speaker of the House and had been on the lookout for news to fit his congressional television show, his personal vision-quest for influence, when he visited New York City for a few days. Basically, he just showed up. He had decided to visit a few programs in different parts of the city, ours included. He was very much into the business district concept, which gave us our start. Problem was, once Newt was back in Washington, although it didn ’ t amount to more than a sentence or two, he sang our praises, in particular our approach, direct, targeted, and like I said, hands-on. He liked our program ’ s emphasis on employment.
~ ~ ~
Another thing. It may not have helped us either that another nationally known Republican, who was not just New York ’ s mayor, stumbled upon us too. By then already famous for his law-and-order personality, Rudy Giuliani spied our programs more than a few times during his first mayoral campaign against David Dinkins. For example, he visited our Center to serve a meal. He walked into the former high school ’ s gymnasium turned lounge and out of the 150 or so homeless people in the room, at least 100 started booing him. Apparently fearless a