|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Matt Tuchow
Since Mayor Newsom took office in January 2004, the City has housed more than 2,430 homeless individuals in permanent housing with wrap-around services to address mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction and lack of job skills, and 95 percent of them are still housed. That is a great achievement, but to contain the problem of homelessness we need to hit at all of its root causes – including the prevention of homelessness among kids graduating out of foster care.
Each year we have hundreds of new cases of homelessness in San Francisco. There are many root causes: poverty, lack of jobs, lack of affordable housing, mental illness, drug abuse and alcoholism. But another key contributor to these new cases of homelessness is misguided state and federals laws that force foster kids out of their homes at age 18.
Once kids in foster care reach age 18 or graduate from high school, their foster parents receive no more public money to support them. As a result, many of these kids are out on their own without the resources to support themselves. According to the non-profit Honoring Emancipated Youth ("HEY"), within two years of emancipation over 50% have episodes of homelessness; 65% need immediate housing upon release.
Fewer than 10% of foster youth that graduate from high school enroll in college, and less than 1% graduate from college, according to a fact sheet developed by the California Youth Connection and cited by HEY. We must address root cause problems like this or we will face a perpetual cycle of new homeless cases each year.
State and local legislators and a few non-profits have begun addressing this problem. But the problem is complex and state and federal funds are limited in their application. For example, government funds only go to those kids who stay with their foster parents through emancipation. Many foster teens don’t; and therefore don’t qualify for these governmental funds. So what can be done? There is a need for policy responses. Government can be more strategic.
To start, we should not cut off funding for foster parents when foster kids turn 18 and instead continue to fund foster parents until their foster kids reach 23 or are able to demonstrate that they are able to support themselves independently before then. The incremental cost to the government to fund foster parents for a few extra years surely would dwarf the comparative costs of incarceration, teen pregnancies, drug addiction and homelessness. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that, after emancipation, without a home or support, 25% of foster kids will become incarcerated within two years after they leave the system; 67% of girls have at least one child within 5 years of emancipation, more than 50% will become unemployed and one-third will be on public assistance. (See “No Refuge: How California is failing its foster children,” San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/05)
Government should also fund more supportive transitional housing to allow foster kids, once emancipated, to gain their footing while learning job and independent living skills. Larkin Street Youth Services is one San Francisco non-profit that is making an important impact. Thanks in part to funding from the City under Mayor Newsom, Larkin Street provides transitional housing in San Francisco for 60 emancipated foster youth between ages 18 and 24 and can house 140 other youth at any one time. This is a terrific program, but 200 kids are emancipated each year in San Francisco. According to Sherilyn Adams, Executive Director of Larkin Street, the need is far greater than her organization’s capacity: 2,200 youth in 2005/2006 alone sought services from Larkin Street.
Because strategic policy changes alone will not solve the problem, we also need more citizen action. Mayor Newsom achieved unexpected and unprecedented success when he launched Project Homeless Connect. Over a thousand people volunteer to spend several hours one day every two months to help connect homeless people with needed services. We should build on that groundswell of good will and the desire of individual San Franciscans to play a personal role in addressing the problem by challenging all San Franciscans to contribute to the solution individually in some way.
So, what can you do to help? Adopt a foster child or become a foster parent. The Department of Human Services works hard to place foster kids near their families. Unfortunately in San Francisco, there are not enough foster families. Being a foster parent is a significant commitment but also can have the biggest impact in changing the life of a child in need.
If you are not able to make such a commitment, consider mentoring or tutoring a foster child through an organization such as Project Avary or A Home Within. If you are a licensed psychologist, volunteer to counsel a foster youth through an organization such as A Home Within. If you are a lawyer or have advocacy skills, consider volunteering with an organization such as CASA to represent a foster youth through the court process, or volunteer with a foster youth advocacy organization to promote positive policy and legislative changes such as “Honoring Emancipated Youth” or the California Youth Connection.
Don’t have the time? Consider contributing money or real estate to organizations that provide housing and shelter for transitional youth such as Larkin Street Youth Services or Huckleberry Youth Services, or give funding to a scholarship fund for college and vocational schools for foster youth such as the Friends of the San Francisco ILSP Scholarship Fund.
Don’t want to work with teens? Consider volunteering with foster youth at a younger age. Some argue that the best bang for the buck is to get babies out of the foster care program through re-unification with their families or through adoption.
To reduce the scourge of homelessness, we must focus our efforts on the root causes of homelessness. We need practical, not political responses to this critical quality of life problem. Reducing the new cases each year of emancipated foster teens becoming homeless is one root cause where we can make a real difference. To address the issue of homelessness most effectively, we need a combination of policy initiatives and a new wave of focused volunteerism. Everyone can and should make the problem a personal one and be a part of the solution.
What are you doing to help?
To volunteer or for more information see the following links:
http://www.sfilsp.org/
www.larkinstreetyouth.org
www.sfcasa.org
www.sfgov.org/site/dhs
www.csh.org
www.fosteryouthalliance.org
www.ahomewithin.org
www.huckleberryyouth.org
www.firstplacefund.org
www.homebaseccc.org
- - - - -
Matt Tuchow lives in the Richmond district and sees homeless daily in Golden Gate Park and along the Park Presidio. He was elected in June to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee and serves on the California Democratic Party’s Platform Committee where he chairs the Sustainable Communities Plank.
Note: Articles are posted for the purpose of generating ideas and honest debate on how San Francisco can live up to its full promise and potential. Posting of an article does not imply an endorsement by the author of Gavin Newsom for Mayor, nor an endorsement by Gavin Newsom for Mayor of the positions set forth in the article.
- : 3.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


March 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Dear Mr. Tuchow,
Thank you for your articulate and informative article.
However, intended with the greatest respect, you fail to address the fact that thousands of homeless individuals are literally sent here by other cities on one-way tickets. San Franciscans should not have to pay the huge social and financial costs of this.
To ignore this population would be heartless, so I suggest that we send a bill to the respective cities so that they, not our City’s taxpayers, shoulder the respective social and financial costs of the problems these cities, not San Franciscans, have created.
This will accomplish various things:
1) Discouraging these cities’ social workers from shipping their problems to us, a City which they deem as so compassionate as to complacently assume this responsibility. At the very least, it might make them think twice.
2) The revenues would pay for social services for these thousands of people.
3) These cities would be held accountable for this problem, both financially and socially. Although somewhat idealistic, it might spark social reforms to address the causes of this problem in their own areas.
Again, I found your article incredibly educated and insightful, as I had never considered the homeless population arising out of foster care. Your suggestions as to how to address this are sound and deserve merit.
Nevertheless, I wonder, if there is not a manner in which to address the ultimate cause and not the symptoms of it - i.e., the increasing deterioration of the family unit.
Lest you quickly pigeon-hole me, I am not a bible-thumping, extremist who doesn’t recognize the virtues of untraditional family structures. Quite the contrary. Amonst the most loving parents I know, with happy, healthy and well-adjusted children are gay couples; unmarried, but committed couples; couples who are divorced but maintain a semblance of amicability for the sake of the children; aunts, uncle, guardians that are not biological parents, etc.
Might I suggest, that ultimately, the root of the problem which you eloquently address is a lack of loving and caring families? MAy I further suggest that the later is more importantly defined by the unified effort and earnestness with which parents raise a child than by traditional definition of the nuclear family?
May I ultimately speculate that even the most extreme conservatives should at least examine the virtues of children raised in an “untraditional” but loving home ?
I humbly come to the conclusion that the root of the problem may be deeper than trying to re-adjust and help young adults who come from broken homes. To truly address the problem, one might want to examine the lack of accountability and respect our society holds for bringing innocent lives into this world and nourishing their development.
As we increasingly become a secular society, people rely on the government to raise their children and educate them in scholastics and life and(or not). The importance of love and nurturing has been replaced by convenience, a substution which is not as beneficial to the child.
Moreover, it seems that there are so many financial incentives in place for bearing children and/or raising them in a foster situation. Are foster parents really compelled by a desire to help a child, or by the check they receive for doing so? How many individuals simply bear children for possible financial incentives?
Finally, how many respected institutions, such as CAtholic Charities, are unwilling to place a needing child in a loving “non-traditional” home?
So my point is? Remove financial incentives to raise children as income opportunities, and expand the base of potential loving parents. This may significantly change the statistics.
Thank you again for your poignant article.
Humbly,
joanne
cc: file
March 15th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Those interested in this topic might also like to know know about the San Francisco Independent Living Skills Program, an organization that does a lot of good work helping foster youth become independent, employed and educated young adults. They are promoted through the public schools and are a helpful resource for foster youth who are motivated to take advantage of the resources.
http://www.sfilsp.org/home.html
March 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Joanne:
Thanks for your comment. You are correct that providing “loving and norturing” foster families is extremely important in assuring the success of foster kids after emancipation.
Matt Tuchow