By Christopher R Rice
First the federal government stopped funding for mental health facilities putting thousands of dangerous mental health patients on the streets. Basically leaving sick people with no medication.
At the same time the ACLU won court cases that gave people with mental illnesses the rights to refuse their medications.
Then the VA hospitals turned their backs on retuning veterans, leaving them to die while waiting for medical attention. In 2014, according to CNN 30,000 vets died while waiting for medical care at VA hospitals.
In America in 2017, 2.5 million children are homeless. An estimated 57,849 veterans are homeless on any given day. And forty four percent of the homeless actually hold jobs but still can not afford housing.
It's time for Americans to take matters into their own hands.
Our goal is to end homelessness by finding work for those who want it and finding and/or providing housing and medical attention for the mentally ill and the disabled.
We will end homelessness by providing homes to the homeless. Once we cure their homelessness, we can then offer psychological, drug and other counseling as well as job training and placement.
Sometimes the solutions are easier than we think. Sometimes a homeless person may only need a cell phone for an application or may only need transportation. We asses and evaluate the needs of each individual and provide one on one counseling.
Employers call or email for well trained, well groomed and grateful employees.
What we provide:
Education: GED, AA and trade schools
Help getting IDs/ bith certificates reading/ writing tutors
Job Training / job searches Appretiaships
Work clothes / boots/ uniforms
Low Income and free Housing
Psych Evaluations / PTSD Evaluations
Big Brother/Sister Program
Vouchers for water/gas/electric
Legal Aid with evictions/bankruptcy
SSI Eligibility classes / help
Free dental and more
Your donations change lives. Whether you can afford to give $5 or $500, your donations will help get someone off the streets and back to work again.
100% of your donation goes to end homelessness. We provide a detailed account of how every penny is spent available on this website.
WE have two choices, we can continue to rely on the government and continue to live in a zoo. Or we can take matters into our own hands and make America great again. Make a one time or monthly donation. Every penny helps. God bless you and your family. And God bless America.
Also needed: donate time, cars, housing, clothing/furniture pick up. You can also help by posting this URL into your Facebook, Twitter and other social media accounts. Thank you for your support.
What happens when you give cash to the extremely poor
Giving cash directly to people in extreme poverty has been proven effective again and again, by study after study. But, this solution often provokes visceral reactions in people, as it runs contrary to the values in society—that people should earn their money, and anything else is unfair.
This fetishization of self-reliance, however, is only one part of why people chafe at giving money directly to those in extreme poverty. A more common refrain: They’ll squander the money on booze, cigs, and drugs. However, it’s just not true.
In the study “Cash Transfers and Temptation Goods,” researchers David K. Evans of the World Bank and Anna Popova of Stanford University show this assumption to be false by examining spending on “temptation goods” like alcohol and cigarettes after cash transfers to people in extreme poverty. Their findings showed that when given cash, the consumption of these temptation goods can actually go down.
Previous studies on the efficacy of cash transfer programs to poor communities focused on recipients’ well-being—looking at increased education and consumption as measurements, not whether the money was spent on vice.
The results of Evans’ and Popova’s research and analysis are global in scope, using 19 studies from around the world. “Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of [cash transfers] on expenditures on alcohol and tobacco,” they write.
Explaining this isn’t so difficult, it turns out. When money is transferred with strings attached, it cannot be used on temptation goods—it’s earmarked for things like education, health, and other betterment investing. But even when there aren’t any strings attached, the money motivates people to redirect money they would spend on alcohol, for instance, to other things.
“By giving households sufficient cash at one time to open a small retail business, cash transfers create the opportunity to invest cash that might otherwise be spent in small doses on temptation items,” write Evans and Popova. To put it another way and paraphrase Warren Buffett, the utility and personal value of money changes depending on how much you have. Additionally, the programs’ messaging about how the money should be used is stressed—a strategy that appears to be successful.
The results have been similar for GiveDirectly, a top rated charity by Give Well that facilitates cash transfers. “The more than 50,000 extremely poor families GiveDirectly has transferred cash to are an example of what this research shows: that myths about the poor being irresponsible, lazy, and welfare queens are dead false,” Max Chapnick, a spokesperson at GiveDirectly, told Yahoo Finance. “Maybe the reason we expect the poor to spend cash grants on alcohol is that some of us might, but turns out they have more pressing needs to worry about.”
Why do we think everyone will buy booze and drugs?
It’s not hard to understand where that thinking comes from: Alcoholism and drug abuse, especially in urban poverty is very visible. The study didn’t get into where these assumptions come from but the authors have some ideas.
“Let’s say you are a Kenyan policymaker and you took a trip to a slum for a few hours. It’s certainly possible that you might see an intoxicated poor person,” Evans told Yahoo Finance. “Of course, seeing that person doesn’t tell you anything about how often poor people are intoxicated or whether there is a causal relationship, but it’s the kind of image that may stand out in your mind and lends itself to a simple narrative.”
Those perceptions are powerful, but there’s probably even more going on, something called the “Self-Serving Bias,” Evans says. It’s essentially when people overestimate their own roles in their success—ignoring the “good draw” they may have received at birth. “A complementary narrative is that poor people are poor because of bad choices,” he says. And again, it comes back to visibility. “If you met or heard about a given poor person who had an alcohol problem, it’s then easy to attribute their poverty to that and generalize. It feeds into a narrative that I’m well-off largely because of my choices, and they are poor largely because of theirs, and here’s an obvious choice that I saw a poor person making.”
The third part of the knee-jerk reaction against giving money directly may come from people looking for reasons not to sacrifice their own income or tax dollars on programs like this.
“We never argue that ‘not a single poor person will ever spend their transfer on alcohol. Only that on average across the beneficiaries, it doesn’t happen anywhere,” says Evans. “The existence of a single poor person who drinks or uses drugs allows you to say, ‘Well, I’m not sure the money will be well spent,’ and that excuse makes it easy not to take action to enact a welfare program that will cost you resources.”
What Evans and Popova found isn’t just important for fighting poverty in the developing world—it could have impact on our future economy. Many people, including former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, think millions of jobs are on their way to being lost to technological advancements. “Job destruction caused by technology is not a futuristic concern. It is something we have been living with for two generations,” he wrote on his blog in September. “A simple linear trend suggests that by mid-century about a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will not be working at any moment.”
This doesn’t have to be a bad thing; technology usually makes things cheaper and more efficient. But if the robots make tons of jobs obsolete faster than new jobs can be thought up, how will people make money to live? There is one answer that’s gaining momentum (in some countries) and some bipartisan support. The idea is to provide a basic income for everyone to supplement income from low-paying jobs that have become the hallmark of a shrinking middle class. It would be essentially like Social Security, but for everyone, and the monetary gains from an automated future would pay for it, as well as reduced government costs.
Some political conservatives see doling out cash as a way to cut government bureaucracy and costs (handing out cash is really cheap) and the social safety-net part appeals to the left. But it’s only it’s been done on a very small scale a few times—Quartz has a great graphic showing where and how it’s been tried..
On Dec. 8, a group called the Economic Security Project, composed of tech executives like Y Combinator’s president, Sam Altman, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and many activists and professors, met to pledge $10 million for further research on the idea of a universal basic income. A pilot project led by Sam Altman in Oakland, will begin with a few dozen people getting $2,000 per month for a year. The learnings from that will lead to a larger trial.
Of course, for any for any of this to actually gain popularity, it’s important that money is actually spent wisely and effectively, and this study’s result is powerful—and useful—evidence.
“There are reasons to believe that cash transfers are not a silver bullet,” says Evans. “You may believe they need to be complemented with ensuring that the poor have access to savings accounts and business training and quality schools, so that they have productive markets in which to spend their cash. But the fear that the cash will go to beer and cigarettes is not one of those reasons.”
Ethan Wolff-Mann is a writer at Yahoo Finance focusing on consumerism, tech, and personal finance. Follow him on Twitter @ewolffmann.
National Coalition for the Homeless The National Coalition for the Homeless is a national network of people who are currently experiencing or who have experienced homelessness, activists and advocates, community-based and faith-based service providers, and others committed to a single mission: To prevent and end homelessness while ensuring the immediate needs of those experiencing homelessness are met and their civil rights protected.
Squat!net provides websites, email and mailing lists for squatters and related projects since 1997
We are a volunteer and non profit based group of people building an autonomous infrastructure.
Homeless Directory - International Index
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Survival Guide to Homelessness
The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities
Criminalization of homelessness on the rise in U.S. cities
Bill of Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Flex Your Rights
Idealist Idealist is all about connecting idealists - people who want to do good - with opportunities for action and collaboration.
Work Less Party
Hawaii's homeless problem reaches crisis level
Homeless problem bigger than our leaders think
Homeless woman's stun gun spurs 2nd Amendment case
Homeless man saves baby born at truck stop
Ending Veteran Homelessness
National Coalition for Homeless Vets
Starting Over Starting Over’s mission is to assist low income men, women, and children in need of housing by providing low cost transitional housing and reentry services to community members in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties to foster self-reliance.