I m reading a lot of stuff that is very disturbing. Like people coming to the conclusion that because one anecdotal evidence pointed out con-artists running panhandler scams, that then all homeless people thus are panhandlers and thus are also con-artists... Not all homeless people are panhandlers, and not all panhandlers are homeless. Or that somehow because of few stories they've heard, suddenly the majority of homeless people are scamming the system, very much the same accusation that poor people abuse welfare to perpetuate their laziness...Or the fact that homeless people, and yes families, can come from a myriad of backgrounds and have different needs. Or people conflating causation with association when it comes to a internet and social media favorite: drugs, mental illness and homelessness/poverty/unemployment. Or people attacking the one person speaking from lived experience in homeless community over semantics of vocabulary and presentation...Whenever, privileged people (in this case if you have a permanent residence, food to eat, and shelter, you are privileged) talk about so called marginalized communities, it is always important to check to see if you are silencing important and necessary perspective from *said communities, otherwise we are just contributing to a very ivory tower-style of academic elitism and theory that has no practical application and actually contributes to perpetuating stereotypes and internalized biases rather than actual understanding.
For example, in my experience working with the Homeless in NYC, my organization: Coalition for the Homeless, know for a fact that families make up a significant portion of the homeless community (I believe there are about eighteen thousand adults in families in New York City who are homeless as of January, 2013, and more than twenty-one thousand children). Homeless families have in particular fewer problems of mental illness and substance abuse. Homeless families try especially hard to stay off the street, because if families are living on the street and they have children, they are more likely to be taken away and put in foster care. Furthermore, homeless families usually don’t engage with other passengers on public transportation, and they seldom panhandle. But inevitably, do some families fall through the system and end up on the streets? Yes, do they pan handle yes? Are the majority of families that pan handle con artists, or taking advantage of the system? No Are they just trying to find any ways possible to get by on a day to day basis? Yes
But the larger issue at hand is the assumption that because there are several policies and laws in place that *addresses homelessness, anyone that does not abide or go through the specific path set before them, they are doing it wrong or perpetuating *bad behavior. Any one that doesn't choose (or rather are unable) to lift themselves up in our current system must be lazy or not want it enough. If you ever examine the histories and power dynamic of homelessness policies and laws you would know that most of them were designed to eliminate homelessness, rather than help the homeless (which are two very very different things). A huge issue with studying and addressing homelessness is that usually the policy maker is so far removed from homelessness (exasperated by the fact that people who are homeless often remain homeless due to systemic barriers and social determinants and limiting their ability to self-represent) that policies satisfy political needs and inclinations rather than address homelessness in a holistic and comprehensive way ( as it is with many social justice issues in the United States). At work, for example we know that there are many policies in New York City all the way from HR at companies (not naming names on purpose) responsible for trying to get the unemployed jobs, to the housing authorities that need to fill quotas and numbers to qualify for the next quarter's grants, and funds. One specific example that I can give now is that many homeless shelters have an active process of trying to set the homeless up with jobs. To do so, they usually refer homeless applicants to certain organization designed to help the homeless design a resume, practice interview skills and teach them basic skills like typing. But this referral and acceptance procedure is highly discriminatory, inefficient, and slow. Certain companies like major retailers, do not hire people with past criminal history, lack of primary education, illiteracy, or drug convictions. Because hiring companies have to meet a number of quotas so that they can report solid statistics to their next budget presentation to a angel funder, or a higher up who controls the allowance and financing, this creates a inefficient and often porous safety net. Hiring and job consulting non profits thus choose to give their precious resources to people that they think they can market, people that they believe can get jobs, so they can fill a monthly quota of #s that were hired as a result of our organization. This actually perpetuates chronic homelessness in some cases because people who could use help of professional help has to be turned away. Other obvious draw backs include, when assessing applicant *hire-bility or *desirability, we are always wary of gender and racial discrimination at every level of the process. Hence the phrase, our safety net is failing (along with many other reasons, obviously).
Furthermore because this procedure is so tedious, difficult and long, often we find homeless candidates falling through the system, either losing their unemployment (if they ever qualified: because you need to meet a criteria of applying to 4 jobs a month in NYC with proof to qualify, along with certain qualification with regards to criminal background and no glaring tax violations etc etc), becoming disillusioned by the system, being between shelters, or any other millions of human reasons why they may fall out of the system. So yes, sometimes, homeless people need help from ordinary people on the streets. In fact a lot of homeless people that benefit from street donations or
food distributions don't beg, they see an opportunity and thus they fulfill a daily need for them and their families, all within a larger and often perpetual struggle, process and reality of being homeless.
Phew. I am done with my rant. I am really getting riled up. But anyways, my point is that, our systems and policies are not perfect, and instead of trying to justify their imperfection by victim blaming (which is a sentiment i feel i get here), we should strive to understand the situation before making sweeping judgments on specific population groups. Especially when we discuss those without the ability to defend themselves on a highly self selective and elitist forum like SDN.
And back to the OP. Honestly, the whole argument that you are perpetuating bad behavior of the homeless people, or you were actually *doing dis-service to the larger society as a whole by not working through the system is a bunch of crap. Along with people labeling you a renegade. Feeding the homeless does not necessary equate to feeding pan handlers, and *the possibility of maybe perpetuating a small demographic's behavior within a larger and systemic homeless community does not equate to the accusations that's been thrown in your direction. Homeless-ness is a societal and systemic problem. Absolute morality, or objectivity (sticking by a rule blindly) is a lie. Thats why we have values, and a brain. We all make informed decisions on how we can constructively help our communities. Some actions are micro focused, others are macro focused; their impacts are different and on different scales, but just because an action is micro doesn't make it inconsequential, meaningless. There is a reason that people are fed up with many backwards, outdated and out-of touch policies in this country like Stand Your Ground, social and professional discrimination of the LGBT community, denial of equal protection and rights of same sex marriage, and racial profiling by the police to the whole debate on health care and people hoping for single payer health care. You had good reasons to help out the way you saw necessary in this particular situation, and to be honest I think you should, albeit humbly, express that it was an issue that you felt passionate about and made an judgement call. Emphasize that you weren't trying to be a hero, just wanted to act on your values. Granted if you have an otherwise clean record, I see nothing wrong with what you did, and I can't see the admins coming to a negative conclusion about your character
I'll leave this quote here.
"Poverty and Homelessness is a burning building, but instead of using the harrowing stories of those who managed to escape as motivation to prevent as few people as possible from ever having to go through that again in the future, we use their example as justification for not putting out the fire. After all, if they made it out, the others inside must have not wanted it as badly and deserve their fate."
. That's not going to their kryptonite. To me that just means I bring a ton of worldly knowledge and experience to the table. Something most will never have or experience. Being a "premed" is less of a distinction, and probably more of a dirty word. just saying.
