CONFRONTING HOMELESSNESS

As Californians attempt to cope with a multitude of vexing challenges, the plight of the homeless remains near the top of the list. While nationally, in 2020, 580,466 Americans experienced homelessness on any given night, 151,278 of these suffered in California alone. Nationwide, these statistics reveal a 2.2% increase over 2019. But, during the same period, homelessness in California grew by 6.8%, and surged 16.2% since 2007. Even though billions of dollars were spent on attempting to solve this problem, attempts to mitigate this crisis at any level have thus far proven relatively ineffective. One in nine Americans live in California. One in four homeless live in California. As some of what is being attempted appears to have a limited effect, it has been tempting to approach the subject from a wider perspective and study what, if anything, has worked elsewhere. This seemed reasonable. However, it turns out that our closest allies in the European Union are facing many of the same problems we do. According to "Feantsa", the "European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless", at least 700,000 homeless people are sleeping rough or in emergency or temporary accommodations every night in the E.U. (2019 numbers). Most of these are in the U.K., the fewest in Germany, if we don't count the approximately 441,000 asylum seekers and refugees in temporary housing. This last observation actually points at a significant obstacle analysts are forced to wrestle with. Few states adopt a universal definition of homelessness. Cross country comparisons don't necessarily measure comparable data. When the European Parliament called on E.U. member states to stop homelessness by 2030, the first bullet point in its resolution stipulated the need to develop a common definition to "improve data collection and coherent indicators to be able to better understand and assess the extend of the problem." In this country, many states use the definition provided in the "McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act" of 1987, which identifies the homeless as "individuals who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence." But multiple states include a variety of other qualifying categories in their calculations, and eleven states don't define it at all. These differences aren't just confusing academic debating points, they can have a significant practical effect on the allocation of resources. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a much narrower definition of homelessness than what is used by the the Department of Education (ED), which forms the basis of funding allocation to school districts. HUD estimates that there are 500,000 homeless. ED reports that 1.36 million children experience some form of homelessness. When the "Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development" (OECD) attempted to execute a count of homeless across countries, 16 countries included people temporarily living with family and friends, 15 included people living in institutions and 15 also covered those living in non-conventional dwellings. It is clear that there appears to be little agreement on how to define the concept of homelessness. Most researchers do agree, however, that homelessness is a complex social problem with a variety of underlying economic and social factors. such as lack of affordable housing, poverty, uncertain physical and mental health and addictions. One can argue about cause and effect, or whether the severe stress people face when they lose shelter and are forced to live exposed on the streets wreak havoc on their mental health and leads to substance abuse. However, the most significant cause remains the cost of housing. William Yu, an economist at UCLA, identified a direct correlation between the cost of housing and homelessness. For instance, in West Virginia, which has one of the lowest homeless rates, the medium home value is $98,300. In California, which has the highest rate, the medium rate is $548,700. In Mississippi, which has the highest poverty rate of any state, the homeless rate is also among the lowest. Homelessness experts agree that emergency shelters are mostly just a band-aid. Permanent supportive housing is the long term solution. This conclusion has led to the development of one of the most promising strategies to mitigate this evolving crisis - identified as "Housing First." This model seeks to move homeless people into permanent housing as quickly as possible, before addressing other issues. The approach was first developed in New York during the early nineties, and has successfully trickled through to a number of cities, states and some countries. Those opposed to this scenario criticize its expense, and decry what they identify as a reduced focus on the human care most homeless need. Proponents argue that giving people homes rather than first getting them "ready" for housing by placing them in shelters, rehab or half-way houses makes much more sense. Overseas, Finland, the only E.U. member state with decreasing numbers of homeless, has used this strategy deliberately and effectively for years. Its homeless count shrunk from 19,000 earlier this century to 4,600 today. In this country, Utah is on track to become the first state in the nation to eradicate homelessness. Using the same concept, its homeless count has decreased by 72% since 2005, at greatly reduced expense. It used to cost Salt Lake City more than $20,000 a year to take care of chronically homeless. It now costs the state just $8,000 to put them into permanent housing. Daniel G. Garrett, Assistant Professor of finance at the Wharton School of Business, concluded that providing permanent supportive housing to the homeless community actually saves the taxpayer money: healthcare cost is reduced by 59%, emergency department expenses are reduced by 61%, and the number of general inpatient hospitalizations decrease by 77%. The point is, there is a way forward. The question remains whether our decision makers are willing to attempt to fundamentally change how we confront our acute homelessness crisis. Theo Wierdsma

CHILD SOLDIERS - A PERSISTENT OUTRAGE

It is not terribly difficult to uncover disturbing feature articles in our news coverage these days. A recently published Associated Press op-ed by Sam Mednick, highlighting the chronic, but rarely publicized, unsettling subject of child combatants, as manifested in Burkina Faso, West Africa, stood out. His story poignantly summarized the experience of a 43 year-old mother who fortunately survived an attack by kids, trained to be assassins, during which 160 of her neighbors were killed. Fundamentally, the narrative exposed a subject matter that has been around, unabated, for centuries. Throughout history and in many cultures, children have been involved in military campaigns. For much of the time these entanglements were unregulated. The U.N., in the "Convention on The Rights of the Child" (CRC) made an attempt at establishing parameters by defining this group to be composed of young people under the age of 18, while the "International Criminal Court" declared that the recruitment or use of children under 15 was considered a war crime. Nevertheless, most warring parties took little notice. For a significant number of armed forces involved in combat, the temptation to recruit, abduct, and train under-aged fighters appear irresistible. Recruiters target children from troubled areas or conflict zones, who are accustomed to violence, and who have few educational or work opportunities. Child soldiers come cheap. They are more easily manipulated when forced into combat, and who, ultimately, are considered expendable. Besides being used as fighters, they become informants, looters, messengers, spies, cooks, sex slaves, and may end up employed to clear mine fields or are forced to become suicide bombers. Not all inductees are involuntary participants. Many are attempting to escape from grim socioeconomic conditions at home. To some, joining active military forces is considered to be a rite of passage into adulthood. Others are searching for identity, expressing the need to belong to something resembling a family. And there are those who seek refuge or who are looking for revenge after seeing friends and family killed. And there always are a few who feel compelled to go to war to show loyalty to a new country they immigrated into. Some observers readily dismiss the topic of child soldiers as an outgrowth of persistent post-colonial conflicts across many parts of Africa. And, indeed, a 2003 U.N. study concluded that up to half of all children involved with armed forces world-wide came from Africa. This amounted to an estimated 100,000 children in 2004, and grew to 120,000 four years later. Today, most of these are found predominantly in the Central African Republic, the Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan. However, it is not just an African problem. The use of child soldiers is far more widespread than the scant attention it typically receives. Statistics produced by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in 2005 concluded that 23% of armed organizations in the world (84 out of a total of 366) use children age 15 and under in combat roles. Eighteen percent of the total (64 of 366) use children 12 and under. There is no reason to believe that these totals have changed significantly since. A U.N. report published in June 2020 summarized that there were still an estimated 250,000child soldiers employed in 20 countries world-wide, while, according to "Child Soldiers International," 50 countries still allow children to be recruited into armed forces. Although Africa may still be considered to be the epicenter of half the problem, the Americas (Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador and others), Europe (Chechnya, Kosovo, Macedonia, and the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey), the Middle East and Central Asia (Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria) and Asia - (especially Myanmar, where more than 75,000 child soldiers - 20% of its total recruits - are under 15) make up the other half. (P.W. Singer, "The New Faces of War," AFT, Winter 2005-2006). This is, of course, nothing new. During the American Civil War, between 250,000 and 420,000 males under the age of 18 were involved in the fighting. An estimated 100,000 Union soldiers were 15 years old or younger. As many as 250,000 boys under the age of 18 served in the British army during World War I. (Recruitment officers were paid two shillings and sixpence for each new recruit and were not terribly scrupulous when signing up under-aged children.) Towards the end of World War II, Nazi Germany removed huge numbers of youths from schools and sent them out on what were essentially suicide missions. And children as young as 8 years old were reportedly captured by American troops as the fighting came to a close. The Japanese imperial army mobilized students aged 14-17, and ordered schools to force almost all students to "volunteer" to become soldiers.The numbers are all over the place. While doing the research you are readily overwhelmed by letters home written by very young soldiers who were rapidly stripped of their illusions of adventure and the glory of battle. Decades ago, Graca Machel, former First Lady of South Africa and wife of Nelson Mandela, in her function as "Special Expert" for the U.N. on this topic, summed up the outrage this appalling condition deserves to generate as follows: "These statistics are shocking enough, but more chilling is the conclusion to be drawn from them: more and more of the world is being sucked into a desolate moral vacuum, This is a space devoid of the most basic human values; a space in which children are slaughtered, raped, and maimed; a space in which children are exploited as soldiers; a space in which children are starved and exposed to extreme brutality. Such unregulated terror and violence speak of deliberate victimization. There are few further depths to which humanity can sink." Theo Wierdsma