To the 20,000 people who are soon going to lose their unemployment benefits, Governor Patrick is offering his sympathy, telling reporters that these families deserve a soft landing and that his administration will do everything it can to provide that.
Well, not exactly everything. If any of them become homeless after losing their unemployment benefits, for example, the Lieutenant Governor believes that emergency shelter is something the state must not give them. Instead, he believes that giving some (not all) of them a voucher to help pay some of their rent for a short time is a more “dignified” way to help. (Not to mention cheaper.) Finding a job to pay for the rest of the rent is up to them. Sounding rather like the overseer of a Victorian poorhouse, the Lieutenant Governor explains that shutting the door to emergency shelter is necessary “to get people serious.” Losing your job, your unemployment benefits and your home, the Lieutenant Governor apparently believes, isn’t enough.
SomervilleTom says
In keeping with your on-target comparison to the Victorian era, let’s not forget the Dickensian stance of our government towards the very wealthy — their assets continue to be safe from additional taxation.
Massachusetts is among the wealthiest states in a nation that is among the wealthiest in the world. Our refusal to raise the taxes we impose on our wealthiest residents while we destroy the lives of our unemployed because of “budget constraints” is morally corrupt.
It is no wonder our government is so reluctant to prosecute its most visibly corrupt officials — once the blood-letting begins, nobody knows where it will stop.
judy-meredith says
but you are right that the Governor’s characterization that his, and the LT Gov’s plan to “end homelessness” will constitute a “soft landing” is just wrong.
I hope and trust that the plan is flawed only because the Gov and Lt Gov are simply uninformed about the real world of family homelessness — just imagine coming into a state agency at 4:00 in the afternoon with 3 kids and being handed a $400. voucher for an apartment you don’t have.
hesterprynne says
Maybe. If so, attributable to the sting of disappointment at this (Democratic) administration’s insistence that ending homelessness first requires ending shelter.
(Blessed are those who have no expectations, for they will never be disappointed. –Jonathan Swift.)
mollypat says
For that family coming in to a state agency at 4 p.m., would they really be handed a voucher for an apartment they don’t have, or would they be placed in the temporary apartments that are part of the stated plan?
hesterprynne says
You’re right that the administration’s stated plan is to have some number of apartments where families could stay while they look for housing.
But whether there will be enough of these apartments is one of the questions they’re avoiding. The fact that they are strenuously fighting with the Legislature for the right turn some homeless families away while letting others in is just one hint that the answer is no. Another hint is that if there really are plenty of these apartments, why were they being withheld from use until now?
Nobody disagrees that housing beats emergency shelter. But for the 4:00 family, emergency shelter beats being on the street while the bugs are being worked out of this untested system.
ecohen says
I must respectfully disagree with the post. As a policy advocate at One Family Inc, a Massachusetts nonprofit dedicated to ending family homelessness in the Commonwealth, I am – as I believe the author of the original post is – deeply concerned about the growing crisis of homeless families in our communities and around the state. The current system that relies upon the use of motels and homeless shelters to house families is not working. Extended stays in shelters and motels are both harmful to the children staying there and an inefficient use of public dollars. Right now over 1,500 families are being housed in motels and over 2,000 families are in homeless shelters at a total cost to taxpayers of more than $160 million. That is money that would be better spent on finding permanent housing solutions for these families.
The Patrick-Murray Administration has proposed a plan as part of the state budget to implement a Housing First solution to end family homelessness in the Commonwealth. The reform plan reduces the emphasis on motels and shelters and increases the investment in flexible housing assistance. It prioritizes intervention with young families that include support services focused on self-sufficiency and housing stability. It also prioritizes shelter for those who are homeless due to domestic violence or natural disasters. Both the House and the Senate have included similar plans in their budgets. Importantly, all the plans maintain the vital safety net for families. The fact that the Governor, the House and the Senate have all embraced a substantive reform of the homelessness system is a tremendous step forward for these families in need.
One Family finds it unacceptable to have families languishing in motels and shelters for nearly a year, unacceptable for the state to spend over $160 million on motels and shelters, not on housing solutions, and unacceptable to maintain the status quo.
hesterprynne says
There’s a lot we agree on. Safe housing is a better solution than shelter for families undergoing the crisis of homelessness. But certainly shelter is better than leaving children with no safe place to go.
Lieutenant Governor Murray’s comments to the Globe indicate a concern that aspects of the Senate’s plan would undermine his reform efforts by directing “too many families” to shelters.
How so? The Senate plan provides that homeless families should first be directed to housing, but if housing is not immediately available to them (and if they meet the very strict eligibility rules of the program), they should at least have access to shelter until housing is available.
If, as the Administration is promising, all homeless families can immediately be housed, no families will even be eligible for shelter. The Lieutenant Governor comments suggest some doubt that this “Housing First” plan can deliver for all those in need.
Many organizations in the state dedicated to solving the crisis of family homelessness are asking for continued access to family shelter as a safety net while this new program is tested.
The Administration’s insistence on denying shelter — even as a last resort — to most homeless families, including those who have lost their jobs and their homes in this Great Recession, creates the uncomfortable inference that its interest in ending family homelessness might be satisfied by eroding the state’s commitment to help.
judy-meredith says
Outrageous. –