Capitol Strives to Define “Homeless”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/washington/16homeless.html?ref=us
NYTimes, 15 September, 2008
So the heated discussion of choice a few days ago in our nation’s capital was apparently how to define ‘homeless‘. For the last 20+ years, ‘homeless‘ meant “only people living on the streets or in shelters”. But given the high-and-getting-higher foreclosure and unemployment rates, the Hill is arguing whether or not to expand that definition.
New expansions of the existing definition under consideration are:
1) to include the ‘precariously housed’ (living with friends, couch-to-couch, day-to-day hotels, etc)
2) just to include the smaller number of people who have fled due to domestic violence
3) to include “only those forced to move three times in one year or twice in 21 days”
(Obviously we have some variance in specificity here.)
The definition is important because whoever qualifies as ‘homeless‘ is eligible for aid, shelter and housing assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
That said, in a typical DC move, none of the bills have anything about increasing funding. The current budget ($1.7MM) can’t come close to providing enough/adequate resources for the people falling under the current definition of ‘homeless‘. So while expanding the definition seemingly demonstrates homeland concern and goodwill, instead of a semantic debate, they should be talking about actions/solutions to actually care for these people.
(And of course it is turning into a Democrat/Republican flame war. I would paraphrase but you know the drill…)
Two additional thoughts:
- I think I may have lived couch to couch at some point in my younger younger years. That definition might need some fine tuning to avoid dealing in every 22 year old in the country.
- I don’t miss DC at all.