Some thoughts on ending homelessness

I don’t think I’ll ever get used to doing homeless outreach in Beverly Hills. Whenever I explain my job to others, I always pause and wait for the inevitable “huh?” after I casually mention Beverly Hills as one of the five cities where the PATH outreach team engages homeless people. How can such a wealthy community have people who are forced to live on the streets? Most of us can’t fathom how there would be homeless people in the land of 90210, and I guess I can’t either, even though I talk to them at least once a week.

When I first arrived in LA 8 months ago, I would walk up and down Rodeo drive and drive past the famous "Beverly Hills" city limits sign with more than a little awe and wonder. I caught myself looking for celebrities just as much as I was looking for homeless people. However, it didn't take long for the novelty of doing street outreach in Beverly Hills to wear off. In fact, sometimes it starts to make me sick. $80,000 cars. $8,000 wedding dresses. $800 boots. $80 meals. Amidst all of that, $8 for a panhandler is next to nothing. But fortunately for wealthy shoppers and diners, it is much cheaper to satisfy the conscience than the palate.

However, giving spare bills and coins to panhandlers only exacerbates the problem. It just makes people more “comfortable” living on the streets. LA’s abundance of wealthy full-time residents and cash-carrying tourists that freely give to panhandlers form part of the “perfect storm” that makes Los Angeles the homeless capital of the world, with some 75,000 people sleeping on the streets on any given night. Another part of that equation is LA’s year round temperate weather. Between the pleasant climate and the great panhandling, the level of motivation that a homeless person in LA has to seek shelter or housing on their own is far lower than in a city like Chicago, for example.

The complexity of LA's homeless problem doesn't end there, however. The final, largest piece of the puzzle is the city’s lack of affordable housing. Easy money and mild winters might seem like reason enough to stay on the streets, but that choice becomes far easier when one considers that the alternative is shelters that are severely overcrowded and dangerous, and public services that are grossly underfunded. As you can imagine, each causes the other. People prefer to live on the street because government and social service agencies don’t provide safe, adequate public services and permanent housing. And there isn’t the collective political will to provide safe, adequate public services and permanent housing because so many people seem to prefer living on the street.

Just as a homeless woman might spend a large portion of her income on alcohol in order to quickly relieve the depression and lack of self worth she feels because of her life’s “failures,” we as a society seek “quick fixes” that address only the superficial, cosmetic symptoms of homelessness rather than the root causes. If everyone took all of the money they spent giving “handouts” to homeless people and instead donated it (along with their time/volunteer hours) to government and private agencies (like PATH) that actually work to help people out of homelessness, two things would happen. First, those who subside off of panhandling just because it’s easy money would dedicate their time and efforts to more socially constructive endeavors. And second, those who have no choice but to live that way would actually receive the necessary care and support to obtain and sustain housing, and live lives filled with meaning and dignity.