Showing posts with label homeless. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homeless. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

Jill Gets Welfare–Jack Becomes Homeless

An article by the Alicia Patterson Foundation. A powerful yet a bit dated piece Excerpts:

Abandoning Men: Jill Gets Welfare–Jack Becomes Homeless - Peter Marin - 1991

Our federal welfare system aids mainly women with children and, on occasion, intact families. That means most of the families on the streets have either fallen through cracks in the welfare system or not yet entered it. They will, in the end, have access to some sort of shelter and aid, while it is the single adults who will be left permanently on their own.

I do not mean to diminish the suffering of families, nor to suggest that welfare usually is anything more than a form of indentured pauperism so grim it shames the nation. But it does, in fact, get families off the streets, and that leaves behind, as the long-term homeless, the chronically homeless, single adults, four-fifths of whom are men. Seen that way, homelessness emerges as a problem usually involving what happens to men without money, or men in trouble.

- there are proportionally far more private and public shelters and services available to women.

- women are accustomed to asking for help while men are not, and women make better use of available resources.

- poor families in economic extremis seem to practice a form of triage. Men are released into the streets more readily, while women are kept at home even in the worst of circumstances.

[...]Finally, there is the federal welfare system. I do not think most Americans know how the system works, or how for decades it has actually sent men into the streets, creating male homelessness at the same time it aids women and children.

There are two main programs which provide for Americans in trouble. One is Social Security Insurance, known as SSI. It goes to men and women who clearly are unable for physical or mental reasons to care for themselves. The other is Aid to Families With Dependent Children, or AFDC. It is what we ordinarily call "welfare." Begun early in the century and then expanded and refined during the 1930's and again in the 1960's, it has always been a program meant mainly for women and children and was therefore limited to households headed by women. As long as an adult male remained in the household as husband or father, no aid was forthcoming. Changes in the system last year have modified this somewhat, and males can now be present if they satisfy certain federal guidelines pertaining to work history. But in poor areas and among certain ethnic groups where unemployment runs high, such changes mean little, and the effects of this policy on men remain as devastating as ever.

When it comes to "able-bodied" (and employable) single adults, there is no federal aid whatsoever. Individual states and localities sometimes provide their own aid. But this is usually granted only on a temporary basis or in emergencies. And in those few places were it is available for longer periods, it is almost always so niggardly, so ringed with capricious requirements, that it is of little use to most of those in need.

This combination of approaches not only systematically denies to men any aid as family members or single adults, it means that the aid given to most women deprives men of homes. Given the choice between receiving aid or living with broke or jobless men, what do you think most women with children do? The regulations force men to compete with the state for women. As a woman in New Orleans once told me: "Welfare changes love. If a man don't make more than I get from welfare, I ain't gonna look at him. I can't afford it."

Everywhere in America, money-less men have become ghost-lovers, ghost-fathers, one step ahead of welfare workers they fear will disqualify others for having a male around. In many ghettos or housing projects throughout the nation you now find women and children in their deteriorating welfare apartments, and their companions and fathers in even worse condition on the streets: in gutted apartments and junked cars, denied even the minimal help given the opposite sex.

[...]When men work (or when they go to war -work's most brutal form), we grant them a right to exist. But when work is scarce, or when men are of no economic use, then they become in our eyes not only superfluous, but also a danger. We feel compelled to exile them, to drive them away to shift for themselves in more or less the same way that the Puritans, in their city on a hill, treated sinners and rebels.

[...]We are so used to thinking of ours as a male-dominated society that we lose track of the ways in which some men are perhaps more oppressed than most women. But race and class, as well as gender, play roles in oppression. And while it is true, in general, that men dominate both society and women, in practice is it only certain men who are dominant. Others, usually those from the working class and often darker-skinned, suffer endlessly from forms of isolation and contempt which exceed what many women experience.

The irony at work is that what you find among homeless men, and what lies at the heart of their troubles, is precisely what our cultural myths deny them: a helplessness they cannot overcome on their own. You find a vulnerability, and senses of injury and betrayal, and a despair equal to what we accept without question in women.

[...]Finally, whatever particular griefs men may have experienced on their way to homelessness, there is one last, devastating kind of sorrow all of them share: their sense of betrayal at society's refusal to recognize their need. Most of us -both men as well as women -grow up expecting, deep in our hearts, that when things go terribly wrong someone, from somewhere, will step forward to help us. That this does not happen, that all watch indifferently from the shore as each of us, in isolation, struggles to swim and then sinks, is perhaps the most terrible discovery that anyone in any society can make. When troubled men realize this, as they all do sooner or later, then hope vanishes completely. Despair rings them round; they become what they need not have been: the homeless men we see everywhere around us.

[..]Over the past several years we have slowly, laboriously, begun to confront our prejudices and oppressive practices in relation to women. Unless we now undertake the same kind of project in relation to men in general and homeless men in particular, nothing whatever is going to change. That's as sure as death and taxes and the endless, hidden sorrows of men.

I focused on the part where the system fails men. Read all of it, powerful piece.



Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Homeless Youth and sexual Exploitation

This is something I wasn't expecting. To cite this report by the National Alliance to end Homelessness:

Studies are inconclusive as to whether there are gender disparities between females and males with respect to sexual exploitation. Some studies note that homeless girls have a disproportionate rate of sexual abuse histories as compared to boys, while others note higher rates of involvement in survival sex and prostitution for homeless male youth than female youth.

To cite some of these studies (not all tell us something about the participants genders)

Feitel (1992) - New York - 150 shelter using youth age 13-22:
21 percent of the boys and 5 percent of the girls said that they had engaged in sex in exchange for ‘food, shelter, money, or drugs.

Rotheram‐Borus (1992) - New York - 206 homeless youth age 11-18:
13 percent of males exchanged sex for money or drugs and 7 percent of females exchanged sex for money or drugs.

Kipke (1995/97) - Los Angeles - 409 street youth age 12-23:
43 percent reported experience with survival sex (46 percent of young men and 32 percent of young women).

Wagner (2001) - Seattle - 289 homeless youth age 13-22:
47 percent of females and 37 percent of males were propositioned to sell sex.

Certainly another one that it would be wrong to focus only on females when it comes to sexual exploitation.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Revisiting the poverty gap

From a recent article by Jessica Valenti
women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty
I think I tackled the wage gap quite often and out of my mind when we look at more than raw wages and factor working time in women make 92 - 95 cents to a man's dollar and there is no proof that this gap is caused by discrimination.

Back to the majority of Americans living in poverty, which I also tackled before. And what can I say the new numbers are here, drumroll please:
U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2009

Poverty Status in 2008
Men living in poverty: 12%
Women living in poverty: 14%

A 2% difference. But there is something that the statistic do not show us.

Alimony and child support

Both of those are threated as monthly bills. What does this mean. Imagine a household with husband wife and one kid. Once the income in that household falls below a certain level, this family is listed as living in poverty. Now after a divorce it is assumed (by the statistic) that the one, who is not living with the children does not have to pay alimony and child support and is therefor less likely to be listed as living in poverty. Keep in mind that after someone who has to pay child support loses his job it can take quite a long time to adjust alimony and child support payments. Often those who have to pay child support are fathers. Some numbers:
In the past decade, child-support collections from the estimated 11 million fathers who do not live with their children have nearly doubled, to more than $18 billion a year. Most of that money comes from fathers who have stable jobs and can afford to pay. [...] Where the money does not come from is the 2.5 million poor noncustodial fathers in the United States. According to a study by the Urban Institute, nearly 30 percent of these men are in prison. Among the remainder, nearly half are unemployed. Those who do have jobs earn an average of $5,600 a year, well below the poverty line. [...] Poor fathers are often asked to pay significantly more, as a percentage of their income, than middle- class fathers, according to the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, a social policy research group that studied 5,500 low-income fathers in seven cities in the 1990's. Nearly two-thirds of the poor fathers tracked by the study had child support orders that demanded more than half of their income.[...] The maximum that child support enforcement can take under federal laws is 65 percent of a person's salary [...]  only 4 percent of fathers are able to get their child support payments reduced when their earnings drop by more than 15 percent. Judges tend to proceed on the assumption that the man's income will eventually get back to its former level. Even if a reduction is granted, it takes as long as six months - while arrearages mount.
Legislation also eliminated an automatic assessment of surcharges for unpaid child support. Starting Jan. 1, 2011, courts will have the authority to assess surcharges on a case-by-case basis if there's a finding of willful noncompliance with a court order. Watson (director of Berrien County Friend of the Court office) said a law that went into effect in 1996 assessed an 8 percent surcharge twice a year to any unpaid support. The idea was to give non-custodial parents an incentive to pay support, Watson said, "but it's buried people." The surcharge amount was reduced in 2006 to tie it to the five-year average of interest rates on treasury notes. Aside from the impact on individual payers, Watson said, the high interest rate and frequent compounding created a huge statewide total of IOU money that is unlikely to ever be paid. At the end of 2009, the statewide total of unpaid child support was more than $9 billion, and half of the amount is surcharges. Surcharges totaled $250 million in 2009 alone. Many people who pay court-ordered child support earn low wages and, for them, the surcharges are particularly burdensome. Watson said 54 percent of child support payers in Michigan report income of less than $10,000 annually. They account for 77 percent of the total past due support payments. - from here

Homeless men

Men are more likely than women to be homeless. Those are not in the statistic (it is a telephone survey). Numbers by the U.S. Conference of Mayors 2007 as deciphered by Robert Franklin about 75% of the homeless population are male:
Most studies show that single homeless adults are more likely to be male than female. In 2007, a survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that of the population surveyed 35% of the homeless people who are members of households with children are male while 65% of these people are females. However, 67.5% of the single homeless population is male, and it is this single population that makes up 76% of the homeless populations surveyed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2007).

about 51% of all homeless adults are single men and about 17% are single women.  Strangely, it gives no overall figures for homeless adults, but if the 3:1 ratio for single adults is applied to the remaining 32% of adults who aren't single, that would give an overall percentage of 75% male and 25% female.  Of course the fact that it's been men who've lost 80% of the jobs during the past year may well mean that men make up more than 75% of the homeless, but we don't seem to know that now. 

Imprisoned men

Probably not among the gifted and wealthy I am citing the above Glenn Sacks's article again.
93% of our world-leading 2.3 million incarcerated people are men
Who will certainly have a hard time finding a job in a recession after being in prison.

In conclusion...

...I fail to see why poverty hits women that much harder. But I am certainly not surprised that Valenti sees it that way. I might be coming back to that article again.