The Mentally Ill Homeless: Cause and Effect
In Looking Up at the Bottom Line, Richard R. Troxell suggests that the arrangements made decades ago for the care of America’s mentally ill have resulted in another case of good intentions gone wrong. It was a reform movement, concerned with disability rights and independent living. Some institutions were terrible places.
Richard says,
Disgruntled, underpaid workers were physically and mentally abusing our mentally ill citizens. Legal Aid in Chicago filed a lawsuit that called for deinstitutionalization. Similar lawsuits swept the country. This coincided with the advent of psychotropic drugs such as Lithium. Mental health providers faced heavy social service dollar reductions. There was the hope that these things could be balanced by treating people on an outpatient basis. They would treat people while they were on a kind of invisible tether.
We have talked about why the consequences didn’t match the theory. When Richard was drafting the Homeless Protected Class Resolution, about one-fourth of the adult homeless in America suffered from some type of mental illness. When he was writing Looking Up at the Bottom Line, the low-side estimate was more like one-third. When House the Homeless in Austin conducted its 2010 health survey, 175 of the 501 respondents had been diagnosed with mental illness.
This was an issue in the struggle over Austin’s No Sit/No Lie Ordinance earlier this year. The ordinance was bad enough already, but it discriminated against people with disabilities of all kinds, and especially against those with mental disabilities. With the help of several other agencies, House the Homeless was able to file some of the roughest edges off the ordinance.
Unintended consequences are the dark side of any social experiment. When plans are being made, the person who says, “But, wait…,” and describes a possible bad outcome, is often labeled as a naysayer and a negative thinker. But sometimes optimism, especially optimism based on the availability of funding, turns out to have been unjustified.
Our country in the 1980s was not prepared for a massive influx of troubled and dysfunctional people into the mainstream. Maybe it all happened too fast, maybe nobody was thinking ahead. Whatever programs and protections were organized for the support of so many confused individuals turned out to be inadequate, and the situation has only gotten worse.
A fascinating brand-new report from Dr. Guy Johnson and Prof. Chris Chamberlain of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia reveals a surprise:
They found only 15 per cent had mental health issues before becoming homeless, while 16 per cent of the sample developed mental health problems after becoming homeless.
Are you getting that? Half of the mentally ill homeless became that way after becoming homeless. Australia is a lot like the United States, and has about the same proportion of the mentally ill people experiencing homelessness. It wouldn’t be at all surprising to learn that half of America’s mentally ill homeless, too, got that way after becoming homeless. It’s enough to tip anybody over the edge, especially in a life already filled with stressors.
Worse, the Australian research shows that the young are most vulnerable to mental health challenges that are caused by or exacerbated by the homeless condition. And, even worse than that, the young are apt to develop substance abuse issues along with mental health problems.
Dr. Johnson, who is a researcher for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, seems to be saying that treating mental illness is too little, too late. It may lop off some of the problem’s branches, but it does not attack the root. Homelessness is the root of a large share of mental illness, not the other way around.
Concentrating on mental health, he says, deflects attention from the lack of housing, the inability of people to pay for what housing there is, and the inevitable family breakdown that results. The belief that mental illness is the primary cause of homelessness sends the wrong message to policy-makers about exactly what services are needed to end homelessness.
Dr. Johnson goes for the Housing First approach, saying:
Homelessness does cause mental health issues, particularly anxiety and depression, and is a serious problem for a significant minority of homeless people… For homeless people directly affected by these structural factors, the solution lies outside the medical arena – and research indicates that providing housing to homeless people before treating their mental health issues is actually a more effective approach.
Reactions?
Source: “Looking Up at the Bottom Line,” Amazon.com
Source: “Research sheds light on homelessness and mental illness,” RMIT.edu, 06/06/11
Image by AR McLin, used under its Creative Commons license.
Los Angeles and the Vets
A journalist’s first instinct is always to quote statistics, and there is nothing wrong with that. For instance, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans says, “107,000 veterans are homeless on any given night” [link is ours]. USA Today says that out of every four people experiencing homelessness, one is a veteran. One in four is 25%, and if you multiply it out, that would make a total of 428,000 homeless in the U.S.
However, in 2009, the National Alliance to End Homelessness put the total at 656,129, and you know things have only gotten worse since then. It’s not an exact science.
In the era of information saturation, it’s nice to think that readers have developed enough savvy to know that statistics can mean a lot of different things. Nothing is more tedious than a dispute with someone who says, “You’re wrong, because according to this other survey, only 22% percent of the homeless are veterans.”
Can we just accept the fact that, for a number of reasons, sociological surveys can’t be exact, and move on? In fact, here’s a destination to aim for: the plain, unvarnished truth that 100,000 homeless veterans are too many, and 1,000 homeless vets are too many. One homeless vet is too many. That’s the signal, and everything else is just noise.
Perhaps the biggest news on this front is the battle over some prime real estate smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles. Back in February, the ACLU demanded an investigation of what the Department of Veterans Affairs has been doing with the 387-acre piece of property. The deed, dating from 1888, specifies that it should be used as a home for disabled veterans, and forbids its use for anything not related to veterans. Portions of the veterans’ land have been leased out to a car rental company, a charter bus outfit, a hotel laundry, and a deluxe private school, and the finances looked murky.
The very next day, it was announced that the local government and the Dept. of Veterans Affairs had started a project designed to house 60 veterans within two years. (There are an estimated 8,000 homeless vets in Los Angeles, so that only leaves about 7,940 on the streets.) Question: How is the military capable of flying into another country and setting up a complete base within hours, yet unable to create housing for just a few more than 60 personnel, and a bit quicker than 24 months?
In June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit alleging that…
… the federal Department of Veterans Affairs has misused large portions of its West Los Angeles campus and failed to provide adequate housing and treatment for the people it was intended to serve.
This was reported by Martha Groves, who further explained,
The complaint, which seeks class-action status, was filed in U.S. district court on behalf of four disabled homeless vets; the Vietnam Veterans of America, a leading nonprofit organization dedicated to helping Vietnam-era vets and their families; and a descendant of one of the property’s original owners.
About a week later, Matt Sledge told The Huffington Post readers about a brand new report from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. It indicated that although homelessness in the metropolis was declining overall, veterans as a class have been making up an ever-larger proportion of the homeless.
The reporter names one of the stumbling blocks:
The chronically homeless have burned through their social safety net of friends and family. Physical or mental disability — along with addiction — often contributes to their plight… VA officials, however, disputed the notion that space on the West L.A. campus provided under a “housing first” rubric — which would not require those suffering from addiction to stay sober for housing — would be appropriate for the land.
Following the debate has been a surreal experience. On June 8, one news source said that $20 million had been committed a year ago to convert a building into therapeutic housing. It said the project was not completed, which would seem to imply it had at least been started. Same day, a different news source, Congressman Henry Waxman, announced that the president has signed a 2011 budget item for the $20 million renovation of an existing building. Is that supposed to refer to the same project, which was supposedly already funded and had begun?
Then, on June 16, a fellow named Dave Bayard, the VA’s regional public relations director, told Sledge that the buildings on the land are around 60 years old, seismically unsafe, environmentally unsound, vermin-infested, and possibly lined with asbestos. He said,
These are not places where someone could live.
They got a bad case of “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.” Five days later, Fox News quoted VA spokesperson Josh Taylor:
The VA plan calls for three of the 12 buildings to be renovated to provide housing for homeless veterans. The other structures would be used for outpatient clinics and research facilities involving the care of vets… he said the VA’s renovation plans have been in the works for months.
A mere two days after that, BusinessWeek published a story by Jacob Adelman outlining the ACLU’s objections to the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center’s plan. Attorney Mark Rosenbaum noted that it included no commitment to care for disabled veterans who need permanent homes. He said,
It is a direct slap in the face for tens of thousands of homeless vets. If you want to imagine a document that says `We don’t care about you and we’re turning our back to you,’ this is that document.
Furthermore, what first seemed to be a promise of three renovated buildings turned out to be only recommendations for which three buildings to renovate. Even the one they talked about in early June as already financed and underway, as it turns out, also awaits its turn for Congressional approval like the other two. It’s just possible that work could begin in December. Or not.
Reactions?
Source: “Homeless vets sue VA alleging inadequate housing and treatment,” LA Times, 06/08/11
Source: “Homelessness In Los Angeles Drops,” The Huffington Post, 06/16/11
Source: “VA moves to renovate buildings in LA for homeless,” Fox News, 06/21/11
Source: “ACLU faults VA plan for homeless Los Angeles vets,” BusinessWeek, 06/23/11
Image by Elvert Barnes, used under its Creative Commons license.
The Very Sane “Housing First” Approach
Joseph Krauss is one of the journalists who have written about the Housing First concept as practiced in a particular place. In Washington, D.C., the nonprofit organization Open Arms Housing administers a building with 16 single-occupancy apartments, three of them wheelchair-accessible. Each efficiency apartment has a full kitchen and bathroom. On each floor there is also a community room with phones, TV, computer, and space for residents to gather.
Krauss interviewed a resident who remarked on a little-noticed aspect of the housing process, namely, how it can take many months simply to mentally adjust to the fact that one is no longer homeless. Moving from the street into a safe, secure environment is of course a huge positive step, but it is also a culture shock. It can be just as disorienting as the original change from housed to homeless was, and a person needs to become acclimated. The women of OAH are doing well, and some are even employed.
Open Arms Housing was established in 1997 to serve the most vulnerable women, who are least likely to benefit from other programs because of their serious problems. Apparently, it took 12 years to get to the point of being able to actually house people, which began in the fall of 2009. To monitor and assist the residents, there are staff members; live-in volunteers; and volunteers and interns who come and go. OAH is interested in developing methods that can be replicated anywhere. Its “Philosophy” section on the website states,
Our model rests on the premise that stable, safe housing is necessary to promote the physical and emotional well-being of all people. We operate under a Housing First approach which holds that all individuals are entitled to safe and decent housing and that access to this housing is not contingent upon participation in services. Those services can come later, but HOUSING IS FIRST.
Krauss also discusses says the 100,000 Homes Campaign, saying,
Under traditional federal housing programs, applicants had to spend years on waiting lists and were barred from housing by drug or other convictions, a process that offered little hope for the most vulnerable. The Housing First approach, by contrast, sees permanent housing and supporting services as prerequisites for curing the other ills that plague the homeless.
The strategy of “housing first” is to identify those who are at most risk of dying on the streets, namely, addicts, the mentally ill, and those with chronic physical ailments, and move them into permanent supportive housing. In any given community, there will be people who disagree, and the protests are generally based on moral grounds. The dissenting voices usually say something like, “Why should we first take care of addicts, alcoholics, and burn-out cases, when there is so much need among deserving young families, young adults, and others who actually have some potential?”
To save the chronic, apparently hopeless cases first is a counter-intuitive solution for anyone whose subconscious attitudes were formed from the battlefield model for medical triage. In a combat situation, the most seriously injured soldiers will probably die no matter what, so they are left to their fate. The person for whom immediate care can make a difference will get the attention, rather than the grievously wounded. Precious limited resources are used for the curably injured. (In fact, a clever assailant takes advantage of this by deliberately designing weapons that will injure rather than kill, to tie up as much of the enemy’s transportation and manpower resources as possible.)
But, fortunately for all of us, this battlefield model does not apply in the area of homelessness. The Housing First model, if it works out the way it should, ought to free up even more resources for those with a chance to be “saved,” as defined by the usable opportunity to become productive citizens. Life does not often present us with such a clear-cut instance of how doing the right thing can also be the economically efficient thing.
The reason for this is obvious, once the potential costs of emergency medical care and law enforcement are factored in. Arresting people who are experiencing homelessness is a no-win situation for society. They can’t pay fines, so they go to jail, to be housed, clothed, guarded and fed at a net loss to the public wallet. A comment on this article, from a citizen named Paul Seldon, notes,
The cost of leaving someone to survive on the street is enormous: $40,000 to $50,000 a year… The cost of moving them into supportive housing may be close to the same during the first year, but decreases every year after.
Another objection brought up by community members to the “housing first” model is the fear that it will be implemented in the wrong way, namely, by de-funding other programs, as Krauss says happened our nation’s capital:
When Washington’s then-mayor Adrian Fenty embraced the Housing First approach in 2008 he also closed a major shelter downtown that had provided 400 beds, pushing dozens of homeless people into an adjacent park.
In other words, it’s a big mistake to pull resources from emergency shelters, food programs, and other services, right away. It’s necessary to wait until the city’s budget begins to reflect the savings from housing the chronically homeless.
In an earlier post, we quoted an official who noted that although the chronically homeless constitute only one-fourth of the total, a disproportionate amount of public funds are spent on hospital emergency treatment, emergency shelters, and the dealings of this group with the legal system. Supportive housing, including treatment and counseling, has been found to result in a 40% saving.
We also looked at the At Home/Chez Soi program in Canada, where the savings are apparently much greater. The numbers mentioned there were $100,000 per year to keep a chronically homeless person on the street, versus $18,000 per year to provide supportive housing. One of the longest-running “housing first” initiatives in the U.S. is the Lamp Community in Los Angeles, where the motto is “No strings. No barriers. No intermediate steps.” The Lamp Community was founded by a former nun in 1985, and has been caring for the addicted and the mentally ill ever since.
By the way, House the Homeless was the first organization to call for Housing First, even to the point of putting it into our name when we formed in 1989.
Reactions?
Source: “New approach brings US homeless in from the cold,” NewsYahoo.com, 02/06/11
Source: “Our Services,” OpenArmsHousing.org
Source: “Our History and Mission,” OpenArmsHousing.org
Source: “The Model,” 100Khomes.org
Image by quinet (Thomas Quine), used under its Creative Commons license.
Veterans Seen as High Priority
At Stone Soup Station, we find an eloquent description of compassion fatigue, which anybody who helps the homeless is prone to. It’s written by Veteran’s Services Coordinator Steven Samra, who puts together Operation Stand Down Nashville. Here it is:
The rate of burnout for those of us in street outreach and case management is high, and a large part of the responsibility of this is vicarious trauma; that is, suffering trauma from hearing, feeling and dealing with the trauma of our clients, consumers, customers, fellow human beings. It takes its toll on the soul, the psyche and the spirit, chipping steadily away until one day you awaken with irreversible compassion fatigue and basically, you just can’t take any more trauma.
There is a good reason why the average person can benefit from hearing about this. The reason is, it enables us to realize what it means when we send in a check, or donate a pair of socks, or volunteer for a shift at the soup kitchen. See, we’re used to thinking, “I’m glad my donation could help that vet,” or, “It’s not much, but at least some homeless person got a meal.”
But there’s more to it than that. Every time we pitch in to help, even if the contribution seems small, keep this in mind, and don’t forget it. Our contribution doesn’t only help a person experiencing homelessness, or even a whole bunch of them. It also helps the people who do this work full-time. Every kind of social services worker, whether paid or volunteer, is a soldier at the front. They are in the line of fire, day after day, week after week.
Any little bit that we can help, it removes part of the burden from the people whose lives are immersed in helping. It takes some of the weight from a compassionate, hard-trying person who wants to hang in there but fears the approach of the breaking point.
Samra talks about the frustration of having to tell needy people that you just can’t do anything for them because the resources simply are not there. And even worse is knowing — absolutely without a doubt — that just a small amount of help could get this person’s life back on track.
Fortunately, now there is a program that looks promising, SSVF or Supportive Services for Veteran Families. The details are on the website, and there’s also a link to the same information in a PDF file. Here is what Steven Samra says about it:
I’m holding my breath and crossing my fingers that those holding the purse strings have finally figured out what those of us in the field have known for a long time now; help those folks before they are considered ‘chronically homeless’ and once they get back on their feet, just get outta their way…
Meanwhile, we learn from Alexandra Zavis that veterans are one of the major subgroups of people experiencing homelessness that the city of Los Angeles is determined to help. Government and private enterprise have gotten together and come up with a five-year plan. The chronically homeless and homeless veterans, two groups that have a large overlap factor, are the focus of this effort.
Their plan seems to involve reallocating existing funds, and that type of decision must be so hard to make. When there are only x dollars, who gets them? The person in worst shape, who has been suffering the longest? Or the person who is just on the verge of losing his or her dwelling place and belongings, and could be saved by the application of some ready cash? The word “reallocate” is a scary one. Reallocate from where? Being in charge of decisions like that could give you a pretty good case of burnout, too.
Looked at from one angle, there is sound economic common sense behind the decision to put $230 million into supportive housing for the most long-term and seemingly hopeless street people. As Zavis explains,
Although the chronically homeless make up just a quarter of the homeless population, they use up a disproportionate share of services, including beds in emergency shelters, hospitals and jails.
She quotes an official who says it is 40% cheaper to create supportive housing with treatment and counseling than to abandon the chronically homeless to the streets. Other cities have found this to be true. Hopefully, the tax dollars freed up will then provide more services to the other three-quarters of the homeless population.
As always, there are several sides to the issue. The most extreme form of the “housing-first” philosophy insists on just that, taking people as they are, getting them housed first, and then dealing with other problems such as alcoholism and drug addiction. The opponents would prefer that the clients clean up first, and show that they deserve housing. And a strong faction believes that veterans of our armed forces should be given any and every kind of help, immediately, unconditionally, and with no questions asked.
And, of course, as always and everywhere, Los Angeles would have to deal with the “Not In My Back Yard” problem, or NIMBYism. But that’s a post for another day.
Reactions?
Source: “Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program: Finally, “Sumthin Comin” To Those Who Need It NOW?,” Stone Soup Station, 12/03/10
Source: “Plan to house homeless vets and chronically homeless gains wide support,” LATimes.com, 12/02/10
Image by foxtongue (Jhane), used under its Creative Commons license.
Canada’s “At Home/Chez Soi” Program
Canada has always had its own way of doing things. Check out this radical plan for not only getting people experiencing homelessness off the streets, but turning their lives around:
At Home runs with a housing first philosophy, so residents aren’t required to abstain from using drugs or to comply with their medications to keep their housing… The building, which is staffed by nurses, mental health and social workers, will be served by a psychiatrist, and offers three meals a day, art classes… yoga and acupuncture.
Acupuncture? Drugs? Yes, and journalist Cheryl Rossi quotes the site coordinator, Catharine Hume, who says,
It’s meeting people where they’re at, providing them with a space where they can actually breathe a little bit and actually consider options that maybe they haven’t considered for years.
One resident interviewed by Rossi, for instance, reported that his cocaine habit has decreased drastically since he has moved into the Bosman Hotel Community in Vancouver. Located in the province of British Columbia, this facility was created through the joint efforts of the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) and the PHS Community Services Society that have renovated the old hotel. It opened in the summer of 2010.
The Bosman Hotel Community includes residents whose ages range from 25 to 74, and about a quarter of them are women. The residents, some of whom have been on the street for as long as 20 years, have not only private rooms, but their own bathrooms. Most importantly, they receive help under a philosophy called “housing first.” In other words, the goal is to get them under a roof first, and then address their other problems, whatever those problems may be. All the residents suffer from some kind of mental illness.
Could people in the United States benefit from a similar program? Absolutely. In Looking Up at the Bottom Line, Richard R. Troxell says of the miserable failure of de-institutionalization in the States:
In 2010 it has been conservatively estimated that a third of our nation’s homeless are suffering serious mental health problems. They now live under bridges.
In Vancouver, the Bosman Hotel is one of several single-room occupancy (SRO) facilities either already open or in the process of renovation. The program under which these are administered is called “At Home/Chez Soi.” (In bilingual Canada, the dual name is standard.) Old hotels are bought by the provincial government, get fixed up, and are run by nonprofit agencies. “At Home/Chez Soi” is a research and demonstration project that involves five cities and is funded through March 2013.
The “At Home/Chez Soi” philosophy is spelled out in an Open Letter written by Janet Yale,
chairperson of the Leadership Table on Homelessness (PDF) in Ottawa, a participating city in another Canadian province, Ontario. She outlines the goals and beliefs of Destination Home, a massive 10-year plan that involves numerous government agencies and community organizations. Yale points out the pragmatic side of the solution: Studies have shown that the taxpayers can house the homeless for about one-fifth the cost of maintaining the status quo.
Ottawa’s homeless shelters generally help people through difficult transitional periods, but it was noticed that a small percentage of the most vulnerable population are unable to escape the condition of chronic homelessness. Yale explains how somebody did the math:
[… I]t costs us about $100,000 per person per year to keep them exactly as they are versus the $18,000 per person per year it would cost to find them real homes and provide them with the supports they need to help them stay housed. Beyond costly shelter per diems, allowing this revolving door to remain open means we are also paying for unchecked visits to hospital emergency rooms, mental health stays, incarcerations and police and emergency responses.
When mentally ill, chronically homeless people are transformed into housed people with a support system, everyone benefits. The city is safer, the business owners are not inconvenienced by raggedy folks sleeping in their doorways, the tourists are not turned off by the sight of them, and the entire community feels better about itself for knowing that it is doing the right thing.
Source: “New social housing project to study mental illness and homelessness,” The Vancouver Courier, 08/23/10
Source: “Destination Home/Chez Soi” (PDF), DestinationHome.ca, 10/07/10
Source: “Looking Up at the Bottom Line,” Amazon.com
Image by quinet (Thomas Quine), used under its Creative Commons license.
Austin Chronicle’s Wells Dunbar Keeps an Eye on the Homeless
Austin, Texas, has been the scene of many of Richard R. Troxell‘s liveliest campaigns for social justice, especially when it comes to housing the homeless. But if you’re not from Austin, don’t turn the page. We are at a point in history where every city needs to listen to every other city, to find out who is doing something right, and how they can be imitated. And to learn from each other’s mistakes. We can’t afford an extended learning curve. Hundreds of thousands of desperate people need help now.
So, how has the Austin Chronicle been covering the latest events in this area of civic responsibility? Earlier this month, Wells Dunbar, one of the publication’s regular columnists, described a City Council meeting where a very thorough presentation was given by Dianna Lewis, the director of the Texas chapter of the Corporation for Supportive Housing, a nonprofit organization.
When those who are wrestling with the homeless problem meet, “housing first” is always a topic of discussion. Seems like there wouldn’t be any reason for debate about such a basic notion. Homelessness is solved by getting people housed. The complications arise when individuals need so much more than a mere set of walls and a roof.
Many of the people experiencing homelessness have other issues too, such as addiction or mental illness. They don’t only need a place to sleep, but a way to deal with the problems that may have put them on the street in the first place. Some people will never be able to make it entirely on their own. They need permanent supportive housing, or PSH, which was the topic Lewis addressed. The ideal would be to provide leased rental units complete with treatment for medical health and mental health, along with the substance-abuse treatment if needed, and job training, if feasible.
Austin estimates that it needs nearly 2,000 such housing units, and the city passed a resolution last spring to get started on 350 of them. It’s going to cost a lot, not only to build these units, but to maintain them. This is where the expertise of Dianna Lewis comes in, when it’s time to explain how a lot of money will be saved in the long run. For instance, there will be many fewer calls for emergency medical services. Court costs and jail costs will be reduced.
Somebody has figured out that the 112 homeless people who most frequently use the emergency room run up more than $3 million worth of bills a year. Surely it would be a lot more economical to make more of an effort to keep them healthy in the first place. Like, for instance, to keep them out of the elements.
There is a lot more to it, of course, but this is the type of thing that cities need to be thinking about — the relative intelligence of spending an X number of dollars now, no matter how difficult those dollars are to come by, versus spending a Y number of dollars later, when the funding might be even more difficult to find. And, of course, no decisions should be made without input from the Austin Neighborhoods Council, because no plan for any project can work well without the support of the area residents.
In the course of discussing these matters in his column, Dunbar focused his attention on the work of Richard R. Troxell, House the Homeless, and the book that tells the whole story, Looking Up At The Bottom Line. The subtitle sums it up: “The struggle for the living wage.” It just may be that the answer lies between these covers — the Universal Living Wage.
So, a few days later, the “City Hall Hustle” column fondly recalled some of Troxell’s attention-getting episodes of street theater and guerilla political-education seminars. Dunbar related how House the Homeless worked for years to modify Austin’s anti-loitering ordinance, which just doesn’t work for people who are experiencing disabilities as well as homelessness. Finally, the group exerted enough influence to get a medical exception written into the “no sit/no lie” rule.
The columnist also gave Richard the opportunity to explain how the Universal Living Wage is different from — and better than — the federal government’s minimum wage:
‘The book is a vehicle for us to talk about the real impact of not addressing the economic situation that’s leading so many people into homelessness,’ Troxell says. With its ‘one-size-fits-all approach,’ vis-à-vis the minimum wage, he says, ‘the federal government is the greatest creator of homelessness in this nation.’
Reactions?
Source: “City Hall Hustle: Home Away From Home,” The Austin Chronicle, 10/08/10
Source: “City Hall Hustle: Across The Universe,” The Austin Chronicle, 10/15/10
Image by ret0dd, used under its Creative Commons license.
Austin, TX “Quality of Life” ordinances
Free: 2012 HtH Pet Calendar
2011 HtH HEALTH SURVEY
BUY THE BOOK
CONNECT WITH US
