Free baby-- 1 1/2 yr old little girl-- any takers? and other tales from Arise

We've started monitoring DHCD at the Liberty St.welfare office in Springfield (and as the word is spreading, we're also hearing from families in Holyoke) and let me tell you-- if I had to put up with what many of these families are dealing with, I'd either be homicidal or suicidal.

We've been trying to help a single dad with eleven year old twins.  They've been living in a pop-up camper in a friend's back yard-- no running water, no electricity.  The first time the father went to DHCD, he was not given an application for shelter; he was told he was keeping his children in unsafe conditions and they were going to call the Dept. of Children and Families  and report him.  Of course he left, furious and terrified.  We told him to go back to DHCD the next day and insist on filling out an application.  I also called DCF in Boston to ask if they thought it was appropriate to be used as a threat against homeless families.  The father now has an appointment for Friday, but DHCD still had to include another threat, telling him he was just a heartbeat away from having a 51A (abuse and neglect) filed on him.

We finally got a mom and her three grandkids into shelter today, on the very day the sheriff was to physically remove them from their apartment. (I wrote about her in "The only thing we can do for you is walk you to the door." She and her grandkids, aged 2, 4 and 12, had gone back and forth between DHCD and the School Department four times, with DHCD insisting on a particular form they said the School Department had, and the School Dept. insisting they had no such form.  Finally, a call to the homeless liaison at the school dept. generated a screenshot of the child's enrollment which DHCD was willing to accept-- temporarily, until the grandmother proves she has legal custody. (Her daughter is incarcerated, and the notarized letter she'd given her mother had been good enough for the family to receive TAFDC benefits.)  When I asked my DHCD contact why the runaround, she said that without such strictness, anybody could walk into the welfare office and claim children as theirs when they really weren't.

"Yeah," I said, "but how often does that actually happen? Sounds like the kind of reasons used for tightening voter eligibility-- voter fraud-- when it scarcely exists."  She didn't disagree and gave me no examples that this kind of welfare fraud really happens..

Yesterday and today we've been hearing about-- and acting on behalf of-- a 26 year old mother and her four year old daughter who were found wandering in the middle of the night by the Holyoke Police.  The police were kind enough to let them stay at the station until morning, when they could drop her off at the Holyoke welfare office, where she was told by a worker,  "There are no shelters anymore."  She found her way to an ally (who shall remain nameless) and from there to the Mass Justice Dept.  They told her to go back to the office and ask for an application for shelter; she did, but DHCD refused to give her one.  So she was going to be sent back to the office once again, but now it was too late in the day and none of the advocates knew how to help her in time for tonight, so they suggested she spend the night in the Holyoke Hospital emergency room, and come back in the morning.  It was at that point that I put out a plea on our Facebook page, asking for mattresses and bedding.

I must say that everyone of these advocacies  has involved intense collaboration with the Mass Law Reform Institute, Mass Coalition for the Homeless and the Mass Justice Project.

Now to the free baby: yesterday was a long day but I was full of energy again after a meeting of our newest, two-month old committee, VOCAL-- Voicing Our Community Awareness Level.  We're dealing with criminal justice issues and the core group is fervent and strong.  However, I was definitely ready to go home when a friend of Arise, we'll call her Dorothy, stopped into the office.

Dorothy is not quite a member of Arise, because she is too busy completing her education in Early Childhood Education to take on the work, but we see her frequently during the school year, when she stops in to visit until it's time for her bus.

Dorothy is one of the sweetest, kindest people I know.  Two months ago, she and her high school aged daughter  opened their home to an elderly man who became homeless after his apartment building was condemned.  It was going to be a temporary arrangement, but he fits in well, and contributes to the rent (which the landlord raised because there was an extra adult living in the apartment), so there's now a tinge of permanency in Dorothy's voice when she talks about him.

"I've got some new people at my house," she said.

"Really?  Who are they?"

"This 26 year old girl and her year and a half old baby-- a girl."

"Where did you find them?"

"I was in the bathroom at the bus station and the girl was in there-- she was crying hard-- and the baby was balanced on the edge of the sink, and I was worried about her, because her mother was crying so hard, and not paying attention, so we got talking, and she had nowhere to go, so I took them home."

"Wow, Dorothy, can I help?-- try to get her into shelter?"

"I don't know," she said.  "The girl may not stay-- she has a boyfriend in Alabama and she texts him all day.  But she might leave the baby behind with me...but I don't know how to take him and still finish school..." Her voice trails off.

"How did that come about?"

"The girl just said to me, 'Please take my baby.  Please.  I just can't take care of her anymore.'  We went down to court last week for me to get temporary custody and we have a court date in September....My school has daycare but she's too young."

"Maybe you can be his foster mother, get some financial help, pay for daycare; they do exist for chilrden that young."

"I took her-- the baby-- to church last week, just to see how she'd be, and she was good, quiet, and she waved at the other people and she waved at me....she's a sweet baby....my daughter says she'd like to have a sister..."

"You've fallen in love with the baby," I said.

"Yes.  I've fallen in love."

She told me more about the girl-- the mother-- which I won't write here, except to say that the girl has a dream that she will marry her boyfriend, and they will get a little house, and everything will be all right, and then she can come back for her baby.  (Want to count the broken hearts in this dream?) What I heard of her story answers at least part of this question: What could possibly make a woman so desperate that she would plead, to a person she scarcely knows, "Please take my baby.  I can't take care of her anymore?"

I haven't been able to get them out of my mind all day.  I left a message on Dorothy's phone tonight.

"Listen, I really want to talk to you about the girl and her baby.  Let me help.  Maybe we can all meet together.  Maybe there's something we can figure out.  Call me."

=================================================================

We had a training today for people willing to put in some time to monitor the DHCD offices.  We have another one scheduled for this Thursday at 5 pm. at our office, and will be scheduling more for next week.  We need more help if we and our communities are not to allow men, women and children to wander the streets.  Please call Arise at 413-734-4948 if you can give even an hour a week.  Thanks.

 Photo of Gari Melchers' Mother and Child from Who Wants to Know's photostream at Flickr.

'The only thing I can do for you is walk you to the door."

The last people I saw at Arise today were a woman and her adult nephew. 

For the last five years, she and her three children have been living with her father and taking care of him as he was dying, which, last month, he did..  She was never on his lease.  The landlord is evicting her, and Housing Court gave her ten days to leave.  Those ten days are now up, and she is waiting for the 48 hour notice from the sheriff.

Two weeks ago she went down to the Liberty St. welfare office and filled out an application for Emergency Assistance with the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (DHCD).  She went back to DHCD on Wednesday and a DHCD worker told her there was nothing they could do to help her.

"The only thing I can do for you," she said, "is walk you to the door."

Well, we're going to do what we can for her.  But here's what YOU can do: we're not done pressuring the Governor's office, our  legislators, or DHCD.  Please call BOTH the Boston and the local Governor's office: 617- 725-4005 or 784-1200.  Call your state senator and representative through the State House switchboard.  Ask them: is this what they intended when they voted these new rules through?  And call DHCD at 627-788-3610 and ask him to have some compassion in how his agency applies the new rules.

MORE YOU CAN DO: Help us monitor the DHCD office in Springfield (and Holyoke, if we can get enough people!) for homeless families being turned away from shelter.  We have two trainings scheduled: Monday, August 20, 11 am., and Wednesday, August 22, 5 pm.  It's not necessary to take the training to do the monitoring, but it's helpful. 

Here are some of the situations that our colleagues in Boston are reporting. I'll be very surprised if you aren't  gnashing your teeth by the end of this post.

In the past week, one very young mom with a 1-year old baby was denied shelter after exhausting her last double-up. She and her child slept for 2 nights in South Station. The first night a man approached them and offered them food. The next night he returned and said he was worried about them and would let them stay in his apartment. He then raped the young mother while the baby slept nearby. Even after the mother returned to DHCD with the rape kit results and proof of why she had good cause for losing a prior job (she had no child care and nowhere to stay), DHCD refused to look at the evidence, denied her shelter again, and told her that they would report her to DCF for neglecting her child by sleeping in South Station. In fact, we now know that DHCD actually did file a 51A on this poor woman. And even after Traveler’s Aid put her up for a few nights and contacted DHCD on her behalf, a high ranking DHCD official refused to place her and said: “she can appeal the denial and get a decision in 45 days.” Ongoing efforts are being made to force DHCD to place this family (which may or may not happen today), but whatever happens to this family now, the harm is done and there can be no denying that this is a predictable consequence of the policy that is being applied.

Other families are being approached outside DHCD offices by strangers who see them crying or distraught and offering to take them home. We are very concerned about the quid pro quos that may be imposed. In one double up, the mom was told she would have to “strip to stay.”

In another case, a woman who is 8 months pregnant and her baby’s father had no where to sleep but an old car of some friends that was parked on the street. The car recently was towed away, leaving them with nowhere to go. They applied for shelter and were told they would not be eligible until they brought in a ream of verifications, including the registration for the car that was towed (which of course is relevant to nothing and was in the car that was towed which no one had resources to retrieve). The pregnant woman in the late stages of her pregnancy has now been forced to sleep on the hard floor of an acquaintance’s house with no mattress and cannot stay there for long. She has given DHCD verification from medical providers that her pregnancy is high risk to which DHCD has responded: "they aren't my boss."

In addition to the fact of the denials and reflected in the above examples and others, families are systematically being treated horribly by DHCD. Families cry to us: “Do I really have to go back there to get shelter? Please don’t say I have to go back there.” They are forced to go to the office day after day, given long lists of verifications to bring back (some of which are not even relevant and many of which should not be required before placement), and then when they do bring them in are told DHCD is too busy to see them that day.

One woman who is a natural born U.S. Citizen and has never been in the Dominican Republic in her life was told by a DHCD worker: “Just go back to the Dominican Republic where you belong.”

One mother with several children who is hearing impaired and has just been diagnosed with cancer is another example. Based on reports from the City of Boston, she and her children have been staying temporarily with her mother in subsidized housing who has now been served with eviction papers, at least in part because their staying there violates the lease. She has spent multiple days at DHCD with her children without being served. She noticed many families who came in later than her being processed in front of her and so repeatedly went to the reception desk to ask if she had missed hearing her name called -- due to her hearing impairment. She was rudely told that if she came back to the desk again she would be forced to leave. Then she was told they did not have time to see her and she should come back yet another day. She begged them to place her because she could not go back to her mother’s because of the pending eviction and did not know where her children would sleep. She was told that it was her problem where her children were going to sleep and told in front of one of her children that DHCD would file a 51A against her to have DCF take her children if she did not return to her mother’s last night.  Traveler’s Aid ended up putting them up last night but obviously does not have the resources to replace the EA system for all these families.

In addition, Traveler’s Aid contacted DHCD counsel about the mother’s pending eviction, based on the understanding that DHCD had promised lawmakers that it would take steps to ensure that hosts in subsidized housing would not be evicted for taking in homeless families. But DHCD counsel informed Traveler’s Aid that no action would be taken to prevent eviction in individual cases.

Gov. Patrick, shame on you! Clothe our children!

When I was on welfare, I remember how much I looked forward to September.  That was the month that Massachusetts issued a $150 per child clothing allowance to help parents get kids ready for the school year.  No matter the bills still unpaid, I'd take that $150, pull out all my shopping skills, and dress my daughter as best I could.

That $150 allowance hasn't gone up in twenty-plus years, and of course it doesn't go as far as it once did-- even a secondhand pair of pants costs over five bucks at Goodwill-- but for families on public assistance, it lightens the load.

Last night I heard that Massachusetts' Governor Patrick plans to not pay the clothing allowance this year.

Yeah, I know, times are tight, just about everything (except health care) is being cut, but cutting from the bottom brings the whole weight of this economic disaster down on the poorest people's heads.  Local merchants should be unhappy about this, too.

The way I figure it, an additional 66,000 children in Massachusetts will be wearing last year's, now ill-fitting winter jacket, or shoes too small, or unmatched gloves.  I say additional because sixteen years of welfare reform has reduced the welfare caseload but not the number of kids living in poverty whose families don't receive TAFDC benefits..

I'm hoping that maybe, just maybe, if we flood the Governor's office with phone calls, we can get him to reverse his decision. 

Starting Monday, start calling!
Governor Patrick's office:
Phone: 617.725.4005 or  888.870.7770 (in state)

Tell him NOT to make life any harder for Massachusetts' poorest kids.

"Begging" online-- what's left after more homeless cuts?

Driving through the South End yesterday,  I noticed that the can recycling center on Main St. is closed.  How far away do people with shopping carts have to go now to redeem their bottles?  It's funny that no matter how poor the average person may feel, he doesn't feel poor enough to keep from tossing that can in the trash.  So literally, one man's trash becomes another man's treasure.

Earlier this week the Boston Globe's David Abel wrote an article on the phenomenon of "online begging," where homeless people-- and others--  ask for donations.  There are definitely some advantages for the potential giver-- you do it on your own time, not under the pressure of a personal "ask" on the street, and if the person doing the asking actually has a blog, you get a chance to know a little about a person before you decide.  I've given a little bit this way-- not a lot, but probably  a larger amount than if I were digging in my pocket for spare change.  Of course, you can still be scammed.

So let's talk about scammers a little bit.

There are scammers like the guy who approached me in a parking lot last summer, begging for four bucks to take a bus back to Greenfield for a job interview.  I happened to stop at the same store the next day and he was still there, begging for another four bucks for the very same reason!  (I had a few choice comments.)  Then there are scammers who steal your identity and run up your bills-- truly among the evil, if you ask me.
Some get caught, most don't, but what they do is against the law.

But to be a really big scammer, you have to work on Wall St.  There, you can be the giant puppermaster and juggler.  You can play with derivatives, which are harder to understand than the Standard Model of quantum physics and which are tied to nothing of tangible value at all, and if you start dropping your balls, then 300 million people become your victims-- and that's just in this country.  We lose our jobs, we lose our homes and retirement savings, or, if we have none of these things in the first place, we lose those few social services and subsidies that help us survive and maybe offer a bit of hope for the future.

Of course when we have less income, there's less tax revenue, and then mayors and governors like Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick start making budget cuts.  Every one of the cuts that Patrick is making are going to hurt real people.  One thousand people who had a job today with the Commonwealth won't have that job tomorrow. I know the prescription drug program for low-income seniors has been cut once again.  You name it, the cuts are there.

But the cuts that really get me are the disproportional share of cutt to homeless shelter and services.

Thanks to the recession, the number of homeless families in Massachusetts has doubled in one year to more than 3,000.  Every shelter for single people is full and  the Governor is cutting $2.9 million from the $36.6 million Homeless Individual Assistance Account, Line 7004-0102, putting 500 shelter beds across the state in jeopardy.  Cities and towns take one step forward in their plans to get homeless people off the streets and out of the shelters, and then are forced to take two steps back.

The Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless is assessing these cuts right now and will be public soon with action steps.  Meanwhile, if you're a still-housed regular person, I hope you think twice about repeating the "Get a job" mantra when you start to sense there are more homeless people ion the street than last year.  Just be glad it's not you, and if you can spare any change, don't stop yourself.

Don't let Mass. elected officials scapegoat poor people!

Looks like some politicians just can't pass up the opportunity to score a few points with the voting public even if it means eliminating a very tiny program that helps working families on public assistance. (Yes, it is all too easy in these low-wage days to have a job and still be eligible for public assistance.)

Thanks to the Drudge Report, a $400,000 program that has provided cars, a year's worth of auto insurance and a Triple A membership for 65 families who live in areas without public transportation may very well be scaled back or even eliminated by the Massachusetts Senate.

Gov. Patrick had planned to add a whopping $30,000 to the program this year.

We have a $5.4 billion state deficit (46 other states have budget deficits also) and this program is a target?

“Folks are calling for reform everywhere I go,” said Sen. Stephen J. Buoniconti (D-West Springfield). “We need to start taking a look at the welfare packages we give to folks, including the program in your article.” Boston Herald.

Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, wants to eliminate the AAA benefit, saying it flies in the face of common sense.

Oh, yeah?

Let's say you're a Springfield resident whose car breaks down on a city street and before you can get back to it, your car is ticketed by the Springfield police and towed by CJ's Towing, which holds the Springfield towing contract. You will pay an initial $250 fee for the ticket and towing, and then $20 a day for storage. When this happens to poor people, there's a good chance they'll never see their car again. (Hell, it's happened to me.) Compare this to the $63 a year cost of AAA.

I can guarantee you there's not a single Massachusetts legislator without towing insurance.

Brewer is also bothered by the fact that recipients who lose their jobs still get to keep the car, although all other benefits under the program cease. Won't that make it harder to get another job? How about if we limit it to people who have lost their jobs for cause?

Like it or not, we're definitely going to have to find a way to increase revenue in Massachusetts. But is there still waste in the budget? For sure (although NOT $5.4 billion dollars' worth). At times like these, I fantasize about being president in the movie Dave and bringing in my accountant friend to go through the budget line by line. As I recall, Dave did it in order to save funding for a homeless shelter.

There's a lot of pain for regular people in this year's proposed budget, and some of it isn't necessary. If you're a Massachusetts resident, call your senator and tell him or her not to scapegoat poor people. You can find senators' numbers here.

Photo from Patrick Docken's photostream at Flickr.

SalesTax; between a rock and a hard place

So the Massachusetts House of Representatives has just passed an apparently veto-proof increase in our sales tax, from 5% to 6.25. It's not law yet, but certainly seems to have smooth sailing ahead. See today's Boston Globe.

Taxes are one of those issues where our personal needs and desires are often different from what we know is good for the state and the country. I look at the difference between my gross and take-home pay and am not happy. Yet I know states have to have revenue in order to fund local aid to cities and towns and services such as the Department of Public Health and the State Police, at a time when revenue is down-- people are buying less, and fewer people have jobs. So what's fair?

Sales tax is a flat rate tax-- the rate remains the same whether you are buying a car or a set of dishes. But sales taxes are more burdensome on middle and low-income people than on those who have higher incomes, because, while the tax rate is the same, upper income people have far more disposable income.

Income tax is generally considered a progressive tax-- that is, if you have more, you pay more. Local property taxes are also considered progressive but are often considered unfair because of the disparities in the evaluation process from city to city.

My personal least favorite tax is the one not considered a tax at all, and that's increasing state (and local) fees for Registry of Motor Vehicle Services, fishing and hunting licenses, etc. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was a master of the hidden tax.

How does Massachusetts compare to other states in terms of sales and income tax? Not the worst, but not great either. If sales tax goes to 6.25%, only twelve other states will have a sales tax equal to or higher than we will. Federation of Tax Administrators.

We fare better with our 5.3% income tax. While 8 states have no income tax at all, 23 states charge at least some of their residents (at the upper end) more in income tax than Massachusetts.

Then there's the gas tax. Everyone who has a car lived through last year's $4+ a gallon last year, and it wasn't easy. You can read a pro-gas tax editorial here.

Massachusetts has a $3.5 billion budget gap. Which tax or combination thereof is likely to solve our budget problems? A one percent sales tax increase will raise $750 million. A one percent income tax increase will raise about $1.2 billion. Then there's alcohol/cigarette taxes. But I can guarantee you there will be no income tax increase this year, because next year is an election year for our representatives and senators.

By the way, our federal income tax is the third lowest in the world!-- probably a surprise to most people. From MoneyCentral:

Tax burdens around the world

Country Single, no kids Married, 2 kids Country Single, no kids Married, 2 kids Australia 28.3% 16.0% Korea 17.3% 16.2% Austria 47.4% 35.5% Luxembourg 35.3% 12.2% Belgium 55.4% 40.3% Mexico 18.2% 18.2% Canada 31.6% 21.5% Netherlands 38.6% 29.1% Czech Republic 43.8% 27.1% New Zealand 20.5% 14.5% Denmark 41.4% 29.6% Norway 37.3% 29.6% Finland 44.6% 38.4% Poland 43.6% 42.1% France 50.1% 41.7% Portugal 36.2% 26.6% Germany 51.8% 35.7% Slovak Republic 38.3% 23.2% Greece 38.8% 39.2% Spain 39.0% 33.4% Hungary 50.5% 39.9% Sweden 47.9% 42.4% Iceland 29.0% 11.0% Switzerland 29.5% 18.6% Ireland 25.7% 8.1% Turkey 42.7% 42.7% Italy 45.4% 35.2% United Kingdom 33.5% 27.1% Japan 27.7% 24.9% United States 29.1% 11.9%

Source: OECD, 2005 data

So what do YOU think?

Take action for homeless families

If you live in Massachusetts, you have a chance to stick up for homeless families. Call your legislator and tell him or her to oppose these proposed regulations (below) that would make it harder for homeless families to get into shelter.

You can get a list of your legislators by town here. You can find your legislators' phone numbers here.

For more information, contact Mass. Coalition for the Homeless, 781-595-7570.

SAVE ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SHELTER FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES
The Patrick Administration has proposed to restrict access to emergency shelter for children and
families experiencing homelessness, beginning on April 1. Please take all steps possible to ensure
that these restrictions do not take effect, including calling the Governor and asking him to withdraw
the proposed restrictions and supporting supplemental funding for family shelter (item 4403-2120).
The proposals to restrict shelter access for homeless children are based on a projected budget deficit
of less than $3.4 million in the family shelter account for the current fiscal year. This deficit is directly
related to the skyrocketing number of families facing homelessness due to the poor national economy.
These families are in desperate need for help, and restricting access to shelter in these precarious
times is not the answer. And these punitive proposals wouldn’t even resolve the deficit, since they
would “save” the state less than $520,000 this fiscal year.
The restrictions on access to shelter are unnecessary to close the projected deficit. The state is
expected to receive from the Federal Economic Recovery bill more than $17 million this fiscal year
and another $23 million next year in emergency TANF funds that are specifically intended to help the
state meet the costs of serving more low-income families in need. These funds can be used to
cover the shelter deficit and avoid harm to homeless children. In addition, the Federal Economic
Recovery package is expected to include additional Emergency Shelter Grant funding that can be
used to prevent homelessness in the longer run. Also, the regional coordinating entities established
through the work of the Commission to End Homelessness -- whose mission is to pilot and study
creative ways to prevent homelessness -- are not yet operating but are scheduled to begin operations
in the next few weeks. We should allow the regional entities to do their work, as their efforts should
render these new restrictions unnecessary.
The eight proposed restrictions on shelter access (see over) include denying eligibility for shelter
and services to children and families who have been evicted or voluntarily left subsidized or
public housing in the past three years. This proposal is particularly unfair and unwise because:
• Emergency shelter was created to protect children who have no control over their parents’
conduct. Denying them shelter will punish kids unfairly. Moreover, many families are evicted
from subsidized housing due to issues beyond their control, such as those related to disability,
domestic violence, limited English proficiency, or conduct by someone who is no longer a part
of the household seeking shelter. In some cases, families are evicted from housing because
they never even got the court papers telling them when their eviction hearing was.
• There are inadequate systems in place to prevent evictions. Few public housing authorities
have eviction mediation systems and most tenants in eviction proceedings do not have legal
counsel to represent them (in 2005, only 6% of tenants but 66% of landlords were
represented). Denying emergency shelter to families evicted from subsidized housing will
reduce the incentive the state has to create better eviction prevention systems, and therefore
will not further the Commission's goal of preventing homelessness.
• Without shelter and housing search services, these families will have no safe places to go and
their children may have to enter state custody, causing greater trauma to the children and
greater expenses for the state over time.
ACT NOW TO PROTECT FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS!
For more information, please contact Mass. Law Reform Institute 617-357-0700 (Ruth Bourquin x333,
rbourquin@mlri.org or Deborah Silva x340 dsilva@mlri.org), Mass. Coalition for the Homeless 781-595-7570 (Leslie
Lawrence x16, leslie@mahomeless.org or Kelly Turley x17, kelly@mahomeless.org), Greater Boston Legal Services
(Steve Valero 617-603-1654 svalero@gbls.org), South Coastal County Legal Services (Rick McIntosh 508-775-7020
x114 rmcintosh@sccls.org), Legal Assistance Corporation of Central Mass. (Faye Rachlin 508-752-3718
frachlin@laccm.org), Western Mass. Legal Services (Marion Hohn 413-686-9015 mhohn@wmls.org), Neighborhood
Legal Services (Emily Herzig 781-244-1405 eherzig@nlsma.org), Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services (Ellen
Shachter 617-603-2731 eshachter@gbls.org).
General Description of Proposed Restrictions on Family Shelter Access
(Note: As of February 3, 2009, the Administration has not yet made available to the Legislature
or the public a copy of the actual language of the proposed regulations.)
The Patrick Administration is proposing to:
1. Deny access to shelter to any family who has been evicted or who has voluntarily departed
public or subsidized housing in the past 3 years without good cause. See discussion on page 1.
• No details currently available about what will constitute good cause.
• Existing rules already bar families whose current homelessness is caused by eviction for
criminal activity, destruction of property or nonpayment of rent.
2. Impose a 30-hour per week work requirement on families in shelter and kick them out of
shelter if they cannot comply.
• While details are currently lacking, the requirement reportedly will be imposed even though
there are few jobs and training opportunities in the current economy, without regard to the
age of the youngest child, with no exemptions for families with disability-related barriers
(although DTA has indicated that individualized reasonable modifications will be available).
• In 2004, the Legislature said families in shelter should not be subject to other work
requirements because they need to prioritize housing search obligations.
3. Reduce the period that families who go over the income limit can stay in shelter and try to
find housing from the 6 months set by the Legislature to only 3 months.
• Given the economy and lack of housing subsidies, 3 months is not much time for families
to secure safe, permanent housing; families who run out of time could be forced into
unsustainable housing arrangements.
• The Administration says it believes it can find these families housing within 3 months. If
that is the case, there is no need for the change in the rule.
4. Deny continued access to shelter to families who are absent from a shelter placement for 2
or more consecutive nights or for 1 night on repeated occasions without advance approval.
• No details currently available as to how onerous the requirements for getting approval will
be or whether this will prevent families from temporarily staying with relatives or attending
to crises, even if they have given DTA or their shelter provider advance notice.
5. Deny continued access to shelter for families who reject just one offer of housing.
• No details currently available as to any exceptions that might be allowed or whether the
housing offer must be in a place close to jobs, schools, medical providers, etc.
6. Deny access to shelter to families in which the only child is between the ages of 19 and 21
unless the child is disabled or in high school and expected to graduate by age 19.
• Under this plan, most families with dependents aged 19-21 would be sent to already overburdened
individual shelters, where access is not guaranteed and family members may be
separated from one another.
7. Deny access to shelter to children whose parents have outstanding default or arrest warrants.
• Children would be kept out of shelter even though state statute authorizes denial of
benefits only to the person with the outstanding warrant.
8. Require all families in shelters (but not including motels) to “save” 30% of their income as a
condition of continued eligibility for shelter.

654 homeless families in motels, but they're closing shelters?

Yesterday Massachusetts state officials announced there would be a one month extension for three of the four shelters in Western Mass. for which the state is terminating funding.

No more extensions after that, the state says.

What I don't get is why any shelter would be closed when 654 families are living in motels because there's no room at any of the shelters where 2,647 other homeless families are already placed.

All of this closing and shuffling families around is part of a state re-organization which may or may not actually benefit families. The goal is to place families into housing more quickly. Hope it works. Of course, families have to be able to afford that housing.

Earlier this month the Deval Patrick Administration announced that homeless services for families would be transferred from the Department of Transitional Assistance to the Department of Housing and Community Development. The philosophy behind this move is to hook families up to housing as soon as possible. Unfortunately DHCD has no infrastructure in place to handle this and has never directly served any individual and has no offices outside of Boston. We'll be starting a bureaucracy from scratch for the commonwealth's most vulnerable families .

Of course, placing families in motels rather than shelters is cheaper for the state: pay for one room instead of paying for a building and support staff to assist the homeless family in gathering the resources to find an apartment.

It's not cheaper for families, though. These motels don't have cooking facilities. That means families have to buy prepared food or take the kids out to McDonald's to eat, if a restaurant or market happens to be nearby-- no guarantees. And most motels are in commercial areas nowhere near hospitals or social service agencies. In Springfield, bus fare is $1.25 each way for adults and .75 for each kid between 6 and 12. Living with one to five children in one room in a motel is isolating and depressing enough as it is; saving any money from a miniscule welfare check is near-impossible.

Just once, I'd like to see the policy-makers ask those who are directly affected by homelessness what they think the best services and solutions are-- but that's not likely to happen.

Next wave of suffering: $1 billion cut from Mass. budget

Gov. Deval Patrick filled in some of the details today from this week's announced $1 billion dollar cut from the state budget to help close a projected $1.4 billion gap. Obviously he's doing what he needs to do, although I expect to find considerable disagreement with some of his choices, especially when it comes to those services provided for those who have the least to spare in their own budgets.

Patrick also intends to lay off 1,000 state workers. Some of those workers will not be able to pay the mortgages on their homes and will fall into foreclosure. Other workers will have to apply for food stamps and fuel assistance. Food stamp usage is at an all-time high in this country and fuel assistance funds are in short supply.

There's nothing like a fiscal crisis to move an economy into a penny wise, pound foolish mode. That's one thing I'm appreciating about Barak Obama-- when asked what he will cut from his proposed programs if he becomes president, he says he is not going to cut fund to promote energy independence. Not only would it free us from dependence on other countries to meet our needs, true energy independence would create jobs.

I'm finding it hard to figure out how we're going to get out of this mess short-term-- maybe even long-term-- and I worry about how the poorest people are going to survive. Usually I aim to be pro-active, but I think I'm going to cut myself a little slack and let myself realize that like it or not, a lot of us will do a lot of suffering before this is over.

Many more families will be homeless this year

A reporter called me tonight to get a local angle on an AP story the paper was running. How is the foreclosure crisis affecting families? And is it true here, as it is in Boston, that the family shelters are full and that families are once again being placed in motels? I made a few phone calls around to confirm what I already knew and got back to him. We're in a world of trouble.

More than 2,000 families are homeless in Massachusetts today, and more than 500 of them are staying in motels-- a practice which had been mostly discontinued under Gov. Romney and which flies in the face of current Gov. Patrick's plans to drastically reduce homelessness in five years by focusing on housing. Federally, the Bush Administration is hip-deep in a strategy to end homelessness in ten years; locally, Springfield's "Homes within Reach" program intends to mirror the state and the federal government's strategies and successes.

Mostly these plans give lip service to the economic underpinnings of homelessness but their strategies focus on treating homeless people as if they had a personal problem rather than a political problem. One would think that the solution to homelessness is a home, but no new housing has been created in many years.. Add in the fact that many people don't have sufficient income to stay housed and you have the poor people shuffle: from apartment to shelter to a friend's to an apartment and so on. Still, Springfield and other cities were making incremental progress in housing some "chronically homeless" people and were starting to think seriously about family homelessness.

But the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry and with the storm waves from the foreclosure crisis just beginning to reach us, much of the progress is swinging back to a loss. People's incomes are stagnant or falling and what we pay for food and utilities keeps climbing. I'll venture to say that in six months we will have a crisis of homelessness that cannot be concealed. We need visionary solutions but instead many will be moving into survival mode.

Hardly an original question but one that deserves a deeper answer: how can full shelters and empty building exist in the same city?

Photo from Thomas Hawk's photostream at Flickr

Letter from Open Pantry board member: why the governor's veto should be overridden

I received a letter today from an Open Pantry Community Services Board Member, and he has given permission for me to post his letter.

There is a lot of *misinformation* about Open Pantry versus Springfield's preferred provider, Friends of the Homeless, which the City and the Governor prefer to fund:

Fact #1. Open Pantry and the city's Friends of the Homeless non-profit do not compete. Open Pantry runs the biggest emergency food pantry in Western Mass; Friends of the Homeless has never run a food pantry. Open Pantry feeds poor individuals from around the city, not just homeless people; Friends of the Homeless feeds only the portion of homeless individuals who reside in their own shelter. Therefore it is unreasonable for the City to state that it is prepared to step in if Open Pantry fails. The City has no experience in the Open Pantry's missions, and no additional funds. There will be a huge void.

Fact #2. Open Pantry receives over $400,000 in private cash donations every year, and $1.5 million annually in food, clothing, and labor, which is the only way it has been able to provide the level of services it provides. State funding has been inadequate for years. If Open Pantry goes under, most of that $1.9 million in donations will be lost. How will the state or the city be able to make that up?

Fact #3. Open Pantry has put together over 30 years a huge infrastucture of churches, businesses, and volunteers it has cultivated over the years. How much of that vital infrastructure will be lost if Open Pantry goes away? How much will it cost the city or the state to rebuild? Remember, the city's agencies have never run a food pantry or a public kitchen.

Fact #4. 100% of Open Pantry's administrative support expenses are covered by private donations. Therefore every penny of state, federal, or city money Open Pantry gets goes directly into programs and services.

Fact #5. Open Pantry is more than a pantry and a kitchen. Through their Open Door program, they deliver cutting edge comprehensive case management and community resource referrals to hundreds of persons at risk of hunger and/or homelessness each year. These services, too, would have to be picked up by some other agency, unprepared to do so.

Fact #6. Open Pantry's mission does not conflict with the state's HousingFirst Initiative. HousingFirst is about housing the homeless; Open Pantry's principal services are providing emergency food for families in homes, and meals for those who are the city's poorest. Thus no amount of "HousingFirst money can be used for these working poor.

Andrew Morehouse, Executive Director of the Food Bank of Western Mass in Hatfield wrote in a message to the Springfield Control Board on July 7th that "Open Pantry has by far the largest impact in serving the poor and vulnerable in Springfield. Open Pantry's services are essential to the well-being of tens of thousands of people. I can't even imagine what would happen in Springfield if Open Pantry were unable to continue operating due to a loss of critical state funding . . ."

I couldn't say it any better. Please call State legislators today. Please ask them to help restore Open Pantry's funding.

R. Patrick Henry, Jr.
Volunteer Board Member
Open Pantry Community Services

Open Pantry backstabbers: bad reporting assists cowards

I was at the Open Pantry press conference yesterday, where the agency asked for the community's help. We were asked to help convince legislators to override Gov. Patrick''s veto of funds for the agency.

After the press conference, when some of us were milling around talking to each other, there was an odd moment when I realized that the agencies and individuals who had come to support the OP-- not the best-heeled groups in the city-- had gradually been infiltrated by people from the community who were there to get food. We were pretty indistinguishable from each other.

This morning I went to MassLive to read the Springfield Republican's coverage of OP's plea. Why I should be surprised at what I read I don't know, but several paragraphs referenced 'homeless advocates" and Noonan's "detractors" without ever saying who those people were! What kind of reporting is Stephanie Barry's piece supposed to be?

"Noonan's detractors say he should not be seeking "new funding" from a barren state budget. Moreover, others say the $400,000 Noonan is seeking is simply an attempt to recoup funds he lost when the Open Pantry's Warming Place shelter at the former York Street jail closed last year.

"We're not able in this fiscal climate to provide funding for services that are not being rendered," Patrick spokeswoman Cynthia M. Roy said."

Barry only quotes Patrick's spokesperson Cynthia Roy-- who gets it wrong. Wonder where Roy got her information? And who are those "detractors" and "others?" Could Barry be referencing those anonymous posters on MassLive? Or is she talking about Springfield officials who lack the guts to go on the record and prefer to do their backstabbing behind closed doors?

"While funding to feed the needy and homeless may seem an unassailable pitch, homeless advocates say there is a statewide movement afoot to standardize help and move away from so-called emergency services such as temporary shelters and the like.

To that end, the Patrick administration is discouraging additional funding for emergency services and is devoting any new funding to prevention and a longer-term approach to homelessness, experts say."

Again, just who are those "homeless advocates" and "experts?". And another point here-- just because Patrick is moving away from emergency funding, does that mean it's a good idea? I'm a homeless advocate, and I have seen Patrick's 'either-or" approach as short-sighted and ill-timed. I'm all in favor of prevention and long-term approaches. But let's call a euphemism a euphemism. If there was ever a time when our local, state and federal governments needed to maintain emergency services, this is it.

Remember that line from Airplane!, when Lloyd bridge's air traffic controller character says, "Looks like I picked the wrong day to give up smoking?"

Shame on the cowards for not going on record and shame on Stephanie Barry-- and her editors-- for allowing it.

Budget cuts drop in bucket compared to Big Dig debt

You can connect the dots yourselves.....the Republican published a sad list of budget cuts targeted for Western Mass. I've been focused on Open Pantry Community Services, but the OPCS is not alone in its pain. I'd assume that even the most avid supporters of law and justice recognize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thus cuts for Girls Inc, Dunbar Community Center, youth programs in Easthampton, Palmer and westfield and AWAKE's entire funding make little or no sense.

Now compare the entire amount of budget cuts-- $122.5 million-- to the STAGGERING debt Massachusetts has incurred from the Big Dig Project-- $7 billion in interest. Boston Globe.

What's wrong with this picture?

Open Pantry: One chance left to override Governor's veto

Why do some people hate poor people so much?

Yesterday there were folks posting on Springfield's forum MassLive who were rubbing their cyberhands with glee over Governor Patrick's veto of funds for Open Pantry Community Service. You can read more about it here:

Today an apartment building in the South End caught fire and thirteen families were displaced. As one MassLive Poster says, "One less low income ghetto the tax payers have to keep funding."

Sometimes it's hard not to hope that these people get a chance to find out firsthand what poverty is like, not only to be poor, in fact, but to have to put up with the slurs and assumptions that others will make about them.

If the Open Pantry has to cut back services, it will cut holes in our already tattered safety net.

Last year the Legislature overrode many of the governor's vetoes; this year, with everyone tightening their belts, it won't be as easy But poor people can't go without much more and still survive.

Readers of this blog who have been following the Open Pantry's saga remember the struggle to preserve shelter for homeless people. Now, its trying to keep the Food Pantry open its current four days a week and the Loaves & Fishes Soup Kitchen still serving twelve meals a week.

You may have called on behalf of the Open Pantry before, but please-- one more time. If you live in Massachusetts, please call your legislator, senators and representatives alike, and ask them to restore funding for the Open Pantry. You can find out who your legislator is and his or her contact information here:

Stand up for poor people.

Heather Brandon gets it right.

 MAToo bad I hadn't read Heather Brandon's June 18th post on Urban Compass. It answers any questions I have (for the moment) about the extension of Springfield's loan from the state and its relationship to the numerous changes Gov. Patrick proposes for the City of Springfield through legislation. Included in the legislation is the extension of our loan, as well as placing a binding question about extending the mayor's term from 2 to 4 years on thi November's ballot. Check the post out for all the details.

For what it's worth: no free ride for Sarno

I know that many Springfield residents have been feeling downright blackmailed by Governor Patrick's proposal to extend our loan from the state from 5 to 12 years. Why? Because in order to get this extension, we also have to go along with three other, much more distasteful provisions-- creating a new position in Springfield government for a "Chief Financial Officer," increasing the mayor's salary, and extending the mayor's term from two to four years. This binding question will be on our November ballot.

One concern citizens have had is whether the four year term would extend to Mayor Sarno's current term. I am pleased to report that the four year term provision (and, probably, the salary increase) would not take affect until the first election after the question is passed.

Our local Election Office has not yet received the wording of any of the questions which will be on the ballot this fall. This is a perennial problem and it gives them very little time to print and prepare the ballot. To get an answer, I talked to the Election Division of the Secretary of State's Office. Interestingly enough, they were unable to find any info except for the mayor's term question, which makes me wonder: will these provisions really all be in one question-- in other words, take the whole package or get nothing-- or if they will be separate questions after all.

Tomorrow on my lunch break I'll call the Governor's office and see what else I can find out. Or does someone already know the answer?

Four year mayoral term? PLEASE don't make it retroactive.

Gov. Patrick introduced a several part bill into the Massachusetts Legislature today on Springfield's behalf. If passed, two minor portions of the bill would create new financial officer positions for Springfield and set up a study commission to determine if the mayor's salary should be increased from $95,000.

The big news, however, would be the extension of Springfield's $52 million loan from from a five year payback to twelve years, and the extension of the mayor's term of office from two to four year.

The loan extension is good news. We need a balanced budget in Springfield but too many years of austerity in a row are bad for the city's spirit. We need a little wiggle room.

Changing the mayor's term to four years is a good idea, too, but I'm afraid that with the increasing dislike for Springfield's current mayor, Domenic Sarno, people might reject this idea out of hand. I know the law won't be retroactive, just kidding in the post's title, but again, people might subconsciously think of support for the proposal as as a vote of confidence in Sarno. The question would go on this year's ballot if passed by the legislature.

(I must say, how simple a change in charter becomes when the right political support is leveraged. Changing to ward representation took years of citizen effort.)

Think of yourself, starting a new job in top management. Is two years long enough to learn the job's fine point, keep a lot of balls in the air at one time, and achieve major accomplishments and reforms Would you want to be judged after two years-- actually, a year and a half, given someone will be running against you at least six months before your term is finished?

I'm not saying it's impossible to judge if someone is doing an appallingly bad job, but it's not always possible to judge is someone is going to do a good job in just two years. Let's hope Springfield voters can take this on with cool heads.

My Black Eye

Thanks to a fall, face forward, on an uneven sidewalk, I have the first black eye I have ever had in my life-- somewhat of a misnomer, as it's really one side of my face-- but my eye is particularly horribly fascinating. I feel like Jake LaMotta as he calls for the razorblade to slit his eyelid (or was that Rocky?)

Life goes on; I treated myself to breakfast at Murphy's, worked half a day, bought cat food, spent two wasted hours in Baystate's emergency room before I decided to leave and then dealt with the (fortunately short-lived) catastrophe of having my car key break off in my door lock with no spare to be had.

Some time fairly early in the day, I noticed that most of the people with whom I was having some interaction were not making eye contact with me. They probably think I got beat up by a guy, I realized-- and do you know, at some point I found I was feeling a sense of embarrassment and shame-- as if I really had been beaten.

January 1st, following yet another brutal murder of a Springfield woman, I posted about some of the concerns that keep women from accessing help. Two weeks later the Boston Globe reported a statewide shortage of shelter beds in Massachusetts; on many days a hundred women will call the domestic violence hotline seeking shelter when there is only one bed available anywhere in the state.

Some women pick up the phone. Some women with a black eye stay home. A black eye from someone hitting you never goes away, even when others can't see it anymore.

Sometimes I don't think things have changed for the better all that much. But still-- here's the numbers to have handy:

• SafeLink: 1-877-785-2020 (toll-free) SafeLink is the Massachusetts statewide domestic violence hotline and is operated by Casa Myrna Vazquez, Inc. in Boston. SafeLink is answered by trained advocates 24 hours a day in English, Spanish and TTY (1-877-521-2601). It also has the capacity to provide multilingual translation in more than 140 languages.
  

• National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or 1-800-787-3224 (TTY).

Art found on a building in the Lower East Side

Gov signs bill - Vote Yes on Question One!

I was down at City Council tonight when former City Councilor and now State Rep. Angelo Puppolo called Councilor Jose Tosado to say the Governor had signed the ward representation that very evening.

Now we can say, Vote YES on Question One on November 6!

We're having a press conference tomorrow at noon on the steps of Springfield City Hall. Jose said he couldn't make it but to remember that HE was the one who pushed for ward representation through City Council. I said I wouldn't forget, that if the Governor hadn't signed the bill, we'd be cursing our elected officials out, but now we will thank them.

This probably won't be absolutely the last time I say this, but five councilors at large and eight by ward in NOT the stronger form of ward representation that so many of us wanted, and that out federal lawsuit was designed to remedy.

But, for now, it's the best we're going to get. I keep looking for the right analogies, and maybe because I've been having car trouble, I thought of this one: you need another car to get to work and you've got $3,000 you can spend. You're determined to get at least a 2000 model, but when you get out looking, with cash in hand, the best you can find on any carlot for your money is a 1996. Are you going to say, The hell with it, I just won't buy? Or are you going to take the best you can and save even more capital for another day?

Now our hard work continues. Basically, one month till election. Here we go.

Doomsday Clock for Ward Representation

The games continue. Today the House passed the ward representation legislation, but mysteriously, so late in the day that the Senate had already adjourned.

I got this information today from Candace Lopes at Sen. Buoniconti's office. Sen. Buoniconti is committed enough to ward representation that he called Senate leadership about meeting in Session on Monday, where, I'm told, it will pass easily.

So now the question is: Where will Gov. Patrick be between the time the Senate acts on Monday, and Tuesday end of day by which the bill MUST become law to be on our November 6 ballot.

I haven't yet used this blog to ask people to take political action, but now I must. Massachusetts readers: please call Gov. Patrick's office tomorrow and Monday and urge him to make himself available to sign this bill, H4071. (Don't know if the number changes after the Senate passes it; probably, but this should do.) Let him know it's about allowing ward representation to be voted on by Springfield citizens. The Governor's office number is 617-725-4005. I don't know any name there except for Ann Walker, his Legislative Director. You could ask for her or anybody else who can get in touch with the Governor.

Whenever something as apparently inexplicable as the Legislature's delay in acting on this Home Rule petition takes place, especially when it is so contrary to the will of the people, there's a useful question to be asked: who benefits?

We know incumbent city councilors are less secure in their seats when there are five-- not nine-- at-large seats for them to hold.

But today, something else occurred to me. Under the current at-large system, state representatives are the only political force in any given ward-- there is no other governmental structure in which leadership can emerge. With ward representation in place, a ward councilor would be building his or her own political contacts and power base, and could eventually challenge a state representative for the district. That makes ward rep a threat.

Much to think about.
Call the Governor!

The new Doomsday Clock for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists designed by Pentagram.