TheHeretic
Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
|
After much discussion, many meetings involving much travel, and careful consideration of public comment, HUD has released the final rule on the Definition of Homeless, and published it the Federal Register. For people in the business of social work, it's a big deal. This is what they have come up with.
The final rule on the Definition of Homeless establishes four categories under which an individual or family may qualify as homeless. The categories are:
1. Literally homeless – An individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, meaning the individual or family has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation or is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements. This category also includes individuals who are exiting an institution where he or she resided for 90 days or less who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately prior to entry into the institution.
2. Imminent Risk of Homelessness – an individual or family who will imminently lose (within 14 days) their primary nighttime residence provided that no subsequent residence has been identified and the individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing.
3. Homeless under other Federal Statutes – unaccompanied youth (under 25) or families with children and youth who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition and are defined as homeless under another federal statute, have not had permanent housing during the past 60 days, have experience persistent instability, and can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time.
4. Fleeing/Attempting to Flee DV – any individual or family who is fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
I say, on a pretty regular basis, that it is right and proper for a country like the USA to have a safety net, but we must avoid allowing it to become a hammock. We do these things with the best of intentions, but rarely are the dangers of unintended consequences honestly addressed.
One of those unintended consequences is plain to see on the simple existence of such a study and finding; we have wrought a new federal bureaucracy that exists to funnel taxpayer money to the created industry that applies for it, and doles it out.
Another danger that springs from our good intentions is that we wind up promoting dependency, over self-reliance and personal accomplishment (both good for the self-esteem we used to hear so much about). What we have here are broad new lines of who is entitled to be done for, rather than doing for themselves.
It's the big question for this thread. Is it the role of government to be the dedicated servant of the people, or the costly and burdensome nanny? Threads go where they go, however, so outside of dragging it into the mud of personal attacks and character slurs, the best ways to deal with the specific problem of homelessness certainly seems like a fine side discussion to me.
_____________________________
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.
|
Government in action: "Homeless" defined - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread