 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Growing up Homeless Growing up Homeless in Central Arkansas TOP
Report: October 2005 Since first addressing the issue of youth homelessness in Little Rock in 2003, some changes have occurred within the city aimed at impacting homelessness in Little Rock. As with any development in service, community, and education, the underlying objective is to strike a balance. The challenge comes when efforts to meet the needs of the whole community meet head on with specialized needs such as the needs of homeless and impoverished citizens. Targeting the economic interests that generate income and impact the overall well being of the city and state as a whole is imperative if resources are to be generated to serve other needs. This continues to remain at issue as parts of the city undergo major renovations and investors put money into long-range projects expected to boost the economic health of Little Rock, surrounding areas, and the state as a whole. The issues of homelessness and the many inherent problems it creates for its victims continues; however, Arkansas government and city leaders have demonstrated keen foresight and concern, having risen to the forefront by action and commitment in the wake of the recent Hurricane Katrina catastrophe followed by Hurricane Rita. Arkansas stands out as a state that demonstrated the ability to produce, coordinate, and deliver at a time of needed service when thousands of individuals needed help, having become instantly homeless as result of the chaos and aftermath of the natural weather disaster. In the aftermath, our state and city officials stood out in their management of resources, manpower, organization and delivery of aid and service to the thousands of affected men, woman, and children ushered into Arkansas. As a result, school enrollment has swelled, homeless service providers have redoubled efforts to provide shelter, clothing, meals, internet access, and financial assistance not only to local citizens in need but to the victims of the hurricanes as well. The Governor’s Office, together with The Red Cross, has established temporary shelters around the state, including in Little Rock. As individuals and families from Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and the Texas Gulf Coast made their way into Arkansas, they experienced the hospitality of Arkansans, the efficiency of service delivered and the opportunities available. As a result, they began to see Arkansas as an inviting choice as a new place to call home. The strain on resources to meet the immediate needs and tend to the needs of those new to our city as well as the needs already present is evident. Once past the immediacy of the crisis, many individuals who lost homes and jobs will need to continue within the service streams until they have effectively relocated and established sources of income above poverty levels. In time, the burden of payment will emerge within local school districts, programs, feeding programs, pantries, shelter services, and other local programs. Human resources and money are always in short supply. While the aftermath of the storm continues, we are still about the business of addressing the issue of homelessness. Since 2003, changes have occurred on numerous fronts. Downtown Little Rock is in the midst of its long-awaited makeover, a new emergency shelter facility with complete amenities replaces the Our House downtown shelter, and a policy academy is in the process of completing its ten-year plan to end chronic homelessness. Targeting the issue of youth homelessness is fraught with complexity. In large part, we look at youth in foster care and those alongside a parent or caregiver; children without legal caregivers who have only unofficial "overseers" are regarded as unaccompanied. So too are the youth who have neither, but move from one place to another, living with whomever will let them stay. And finally, families with children, often single mothers, and frequently accompanied by siblings. All need access to services to meet their needs. Generating funds, distribution of funds, policy formation, program implementation and studies to determine how best each of these areas moves forward creates its own problematic process. Meanwhile, the children grow up. Growing up within the cycle of poverty, despair, instability, and turmoil creates additional problems and risks. Providers will agree these are significant issues pertinent to addressing youth homelessness. Since last considering the issues of youth homelessness, Little Rock has been the recipient of stinging criticisms for its attitude toward the homeless. Providers committed to the task of serving the homeless, both child and adult on a day-to-day basis, know that right in the heart of Little Rock are a host of caring, dedicated, diligent, and tireless individuals who often go out of their way to help the homeless on many different levels. Thank you to the following individuals for their time and patience in discussing their programs, policies, issues and concerns for Little Rock’s homeless youth and the broader issue of homelessness: Doris Turner, City of Little Rock Housing & Neighborhood Programs; Clorinda Arace, Department of Health and Human Services; Susan Underwood, Arkansas Department of Education; Brenda Bowles, Pulaski County Special Education School District; JoAnn (Cookie) Higgens, Emergency Youth Shelter - Centers for Youth & Families, Nina Scaife, Little Rock - Local Education Agency Representative (LEA), Laura Rhea, Rice Depot; Jessie Goodrum, Our House, Inc., Rosemary Holloway, Salvation Army; Miranda Raynes Department of Human Services - Foster Care; Robin Manees, Dorcus House; Les Hoelewyn and Bill Willoughby, Arkansas Management Information System (ARMIS); Janet Brown, Starting Point Child Care & Early Learning Center; Carol Wilkins, Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Services; Carolyn Lazero-Turturro, UALR; thanks also to others who helped work through the matrix of youth homelessness in Little Rock. Each has a passion for their work and a special obligation to the homeless of Central Arkansas. What follows here is an update to the 2003 findings of a study of homeless youth in Little Rock. Geography and existing programs preclude exclusion of North Little Rock, and outlying Pulaski County. This report focuses on homeless youth in Little Rock, however, in some cases the agencies and organization address and serves youth in other parts of Pulaski County as well. In these cases it was not possible to extract data only relevant to Little Rock proper. Here we address the issues of resources and limitations, and again those agencies that press on to meet the needs of homeless children. This report describes how agencies in Little Rock aim to meet the needs of homeless youth. The report:
Limited resources continue to be a challenge to the few agencies committed to the responsibility for serving homeless youth. The ebb and flow of monetary resources creates shortages in staffing, funds, facilities, and consumable goods. Focus turns to budget adjustments, stretching too few dollars and shrinking funds when programs are combined and results in budget cuts as fallout. Adequate interagency communication, networking, sufficient funding, and state support continue to be concerns. Federal funds remain a primary resource for the state and local agencies who serve the homeless. Funds, once allocated to the state are divvied up contingent upon Requests for Proposals - competitive funds, which account for only fractions of an overall budget - and are subject to cuts and contingencies. Still, agencies that serve the homeless do a good job with the few resources available. Operating costs continue to rise, as does the need for Arkansas to consider previous efforts to create a state generated process to collect funds that can be earmarked for the benefit of addressing specifically the issue of homelessness, particularly youth homelessness. Presently, and since 1992, the Arkansas Management Information System (ARMIS) has functioned as a service point to collect and track data on the homeless, with service point agencies reporting regularly on contact and service to the homeless statewide. This is valuable data, but does not and is not expected to account for 100 percent of the state or city's homeless population, particularly the children. It is important to note that not all homeless service providers concurrently submit their data through this system. Several studies and reports, cited herein, have been undertaken since 2003; these, compiling data, services, issues and challenges Arkansas faces in addressing the issues of youth homelessness. Since then, the city in part has taken a more proactive role in stepping up to meet with the issues of homelessness. Amid criticisms, accusations of being shortsighted and mean spirited, it has taken steps and spent time with the issue. Evidence of this lies in the time and money spent to roll up the sleeves and take a hard look at the problems, potential solutions, and routes that can be taken toward solutions. No single individual or small group can tackle the problem alone. Clarity comes to the need for a larger solution that would ease the burden of inadequate funding and the scope of need and ultimate cost of youth homelessness. There remains an inherent challenge to presenting a full and accurate picture of youth homelessness in the very nature of the population and the laws governing assistance to them, then accurately tracking them. What has not changed is this: a youth may be a resident for a night or a week in a local shelter, be enrolled within the school and tended via the homeless liaisons, gone in a short time, and reappear within the foster care system. Another youth may be incarcerated within the juvenile system, adjudicated, and reappear within the shelter care system with his or her guardians. Youth without a parent or guardian face the biggest challenges. Resources, facilities, and laws make it a challenge for a youth under the age of 18 to assess any significant or long term services. Services within Little Rock are geared toward youth who are under some form of guardianship, albeit frequently unstable. Guardianship by an adult is required to obtain housing at a shelter, attend to any school business, or access any pertinent records. This leaves multiple roadblocks and a propensity toward desperate and illegal behaviors to meet basic survival needs. Other shelters cannot and will not provide services to unaccompanied children. Those then are the unknown number of homeless youth who fall through the cracks; their numbers will probably never be known. These shelters cannot serve those homeless youth, unless they are emancipated, therefore, these homeless youth avoid interacting with service agencies for fear they will be forced into state custody. What becomes increasingly apparent when one looks at all of the issues involved in youth homelessness; risks, instability, fear, and deprivation is that today's homeless youth are tomorrow's chronically homeless adults. They are learning now from the models provided to them and at the knee of whoever is marginally available that surviving takes many forms. It is an institutional hand that rocks this cradle and it is an institutional hand they will seek to survive with as they matriculate into society without adequate shelter - a roof overhead, a place to call home. As in the 2003 report, youth are described for the purpose of this project as children under the age of 18. Reporting agencies that serve homeless youth include a host of local service and state agencies, which serve a varied range of homeless youth including those infant through age 21. The focus here is on school age children, with a caveat that a broader range of study would assist in delineating a clearer line from those under school age. Children served and reported on are not simply reported as school-ready at age five, but are broken down by service categories at age eight, nor do they necessarily leave the system at age 18, rather they may have an opportunity to stay until age 21 while still in school; this, another inherent challenge to fully and accurately describing the population. While some of the young people under guardianship and eligible for longer stays, those within the foster care system are guarded by the state. While reporting for emergency shelter and runaway lines can at a glance be presented, there seems to be no means for accurately counting those children who have been abandoned by parents to friends, relatives, or left to themselves. It is a population that has been described as a moving target. But, it exists, as one of the most difficult to identify in whole, and largely identified when it is by school officials - teachers, bus drivers, counselors. A significant difference between this update and the 2003 is its direction toward a pragmatic approach: a more comprehensive exploration of the programs and the people who operate them. Rather than mere counts, a qualitative over quantitative exploration of how these programs function to serve homeless youth and the burdens and barriers faced in the day-to-day operations. Counts change. Reports again and again discuss the increases in homeless youth, homeless families and chronic homeless in the state. The issue has turned itself on not whether the numbers are higher, but the frustrations in meeting obligatory contingencies, meeting mission objectives, and making the difference in the lives of the neediest population that everyone agrees upon as the goal. For some, the hurricanes in the gulf coast set budgets on their economic ear, and leaves providers scrambling to make ends meet as donor dollars are funneled into Katrina specific operations during a peak season when agencies hope to generate a significant portion of funding hoped to see them through a lean but most demanding season. Research and reporting from 2000 to 2005 is included here, as well as interviews with local providers, and several young women who spoke about their own experiences. Similarly, a look at the kinds of programs offered and funded in other states demonstrates a sense of creativity and focus other states have taken to address the problems of youth homelessness. The cyclical nature of the problem is redundant and self-evident. Children still learn what they live and how to live. Sometimes the how includes self-abasement, drug use and illegal activity; including theft and fraud. Children born to children are often not taught the values that lead them in positive directions toward family and future; rather they cultivate an increased dependency on state services and multiple handouts to meet basic needs, and may engage in criminal behaviors. They can become disengaged and disconnected from the community outside themselves, and they pass along those behaviors to their children. It is a burgeoning model of behavior: young or old, people will do what it takes to survive - not to make ends meet, but to meet ends - food and shelter by whatever means necessary. Some of the service providers who spoke frankly about their concerns preferred to remain anonymous. In these cases no direct attribution is supplied, but will be noted with an *. This is a safeguard to those who were forthcoming in their opinions and thoughts about what we as a community could be doing better to serve homeless youth. Serving a needy population can be an emotionally and physically draining business; trying to do what needs to be done for those who cannot do for themselves, particularly a child is a difficult and tedious task. But on the whole, many who were doing the job then, when it was first described are still there, still working at it the best they can with little and or less than before. The inclusion of the definition for homeless is significant when we consider the population (or sub-populations) we serve. Whether forming pro-active task groups to study and pursue decision making, drafting legislation, creating action plans, or submitting funding proposals, we need a clear and descriptive view of who the homeless are and how we meet our obligations in line with the objectives. The definitions differ from child to adult. On his own, a homeless child falls nowhere within the framework of the definition of a 'Chronically Homeless Person,' as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD - the same entity which defines a homeless youth, and which provides funding for shelter agencies to deliver services to the Chronically Homeless Person and for the Homeless Youth. For the purposes of this report, both follow: A chronically homeless person (is) "an unaccompanied homeless individual
with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a
year or more or has had at least four (4) episodes of homelessness in the
past three (3) years." To be considered chronically homeless a person must
have been on the streets or in an emergency shelter (i.e. not transitional
housing) during these stays. (12) The aforementioned has been adopted by the Arkansas Policy Academy Team and was reported in a memo distributed to the Arkansas Interagency Council Members. The No Child Left Behind Act and McKinney-Vento Law define homeless youth
as: The term "homeless children and youths"-- (A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and (B) includes: (i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement; (ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C)); (iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and (iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i) through (iii). Although children situated within a recognized foster home are not mentioned within the McKinney Vento Law, such placements can be temporary. These children receive the same educational benefits and eligibility status as children awaiting foster care placement. The causes of homelessness are varied. Increasingly, economic instability puts families at risk when insufficient jobs, housing, and resources to maintain a home dwindle. Attempts to obtain resources to acquire basic needs for food and shelter, their situation becomes worsened in a system designed to undermine the whole family, rather a single or separated adult may obtain resources on behalf of the child(ren), but diminishes in a two parent household. Reasons for youth homelessness, though frequently similar, go beyond the scope of homeless adults to include runaways, juvenile offenders, children who have been abandoned by their parents and are unwelcome additions to other relatives or immediate family. Sometimes they are removed from home situations for reasons that range from neglect and abuse to dangerous or unfit environments and sexual molestation. Nonetheless, in such cases they become wards of the state, and commonly spend their lives in transit, permanency becomes increasingly elusive. Children who run sometimes run from already poor and threatening living conditions, wherein social services may not have intervened, but the child left on his or her own, and nobody cared. Three categories of interrelated and overlapping issues result in youth homelessness: economic and family problems as well as residential instability. Many homeless youth leave home after years of physical and sexual abuse, strained relationships, addiction of a family member, and parental neglect. Disruptive family conditions are the principal reason that young people leave home: in one study, more than half of the youth interviewed during shelter stays reported that their parents either told them to leave or knew they were leaving and did not care. In another study, 46% of runaway and homeless youth had been physically abused and 17% had been forced into unwanted sexual activity by a family or household member. Some become homeless when their families suffered financial crises resulting from lack of affordable housing, limited employment opportunities, insufficient wages, no medical insurance, or inadequate welfare benefits. These youth become homeless with their families, but are later separated from them by shelter, transitional housing, or child welfare policies. (11) Residential instability also contributes to homelessness among youth. A history of foster care has been found to be correlated with becoming homeless at an earlier age and remaining homeless for a longer period of time. Some youth living in residential or institutional placements become homeless upon discharge -- they are too old for foster care but are discharged with no housing or income support. One national study reported that more than one in five youth who arrived at shelters came directly from foster care, and that more than one in four had been in foster care in the previous year. (11) Sometimes children are raised with a disconnected sense of themselves from the rest of society. They live to survive by whatever means the relevant adults and models have been for them. An overview of the categories of homeless youth includes those in the foster care system; these youth may have been placed by the state, abandoned by their families, have medical conditions and the family is unwilling or unable to care for them, or have grown up within the system, having been placed or abandoned at an early age. The Arkansas Office for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth defines a homeless child or youth as someone who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate place of residence. Homeless children and youth include those who:
The homeless are the children of the homeless: "...the jobless workers who got fired or laid off because of budget cuts or other problems. They are the unemployed who did not have work benefits. They are part of the millions of people who work for minimum wage. They are the people on the waiting list for public housing. They are refugees from other nations. They are veterans who went away to war and came home sick or wounded and ended up homeless. They are the children who live with these homeless people. Or they are the children who have either run away from their homes or have been kicked out of their homes." (1) The obvious problem inherent to accurately counting homeless youth is at the heart of the issue; they are mobile under or without the care of significant adults. In 2004, University of Arkansas at Little Rock presented the results of a "Point in Time" count and study of the homeless in Central Arkansas. The findings of this study though encompassing a broader area than Little Rock, or even Pulaski County, address the pertinent issues and are applicable as a microcosm of the troubling nature of homelessness among young people left unchecked. In 2001, from among those 416 homeless persons counted then in emergency shelters; 69 or 16.7 percent first became homeless as teenagers. A reported 729 individuals and family members were staying in transitional shelters, and an additional 284 persons were identified unsheltered. In its follow up data gathered from records in the Little Rock and North Little Rock Public Schools, more than 500 homeless children were enrolled; however the count only identified about 200 of the children. The total count submitted for the purposes of the count Housing and Urban Development count were 1429 persons. When all final data was collected total estimated homeless in Central Arkansas reached 2,634 for 2001 and 3,000 for 2004, an estimated increase of 15 percent in Central Arkansas. Dr. Carolynn Lazero-Turturro, UALR School of Social Work, has led the Point in Time homeless counts during both years. She said the rules and definitions change with each count, making it difficult for homeless persons to be counted. During the 2004 study changes in counting children were adjusted to exclude children who were doubled or tripled up, staying in hotels or with relatives. Additional changes excluded other adult populations. "No matter what we do, it's going to be an undercount because the definitions change from year to year, making it harder and harder to be counted," she said. Local school districts were already reporting increased numbers of homeless children, but the hurricanes have swelled enrollments with Little Rock receiving 273 children, North Little Rock 80 children, and Pulaski County 125 from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. While the hurricane-related devastation has put extra strain, the issues prior to the event remain the same. The homeless youth who travel with adults and stay in shelters are included with those who are cared for by the foster care system and juvenile detention facilities. The numbers are only as valid as the date of any given day and can be substantiated only by the agencies who can identify them as enrolled in school, staying at a shelter, within the foster care system, or have been incarcerated, or otherwise reported. Runaways, those moving from house to house to stay with friends or acquaintances "doubling up," or in some form of hiding from systems or adults are difficult to track, not just in the City of Little Rock, but nationally as well. The school districts are burdened with the most significant portion of responsibility for reaching out to and providing for homeless youth. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, and the McKinney-Vento law, school districts are required to identify homeless youth and provide access to education, resources, supplies, and to some degree the stability expected by providing transportation to the school he or she is enrolled in whether the location of the student changes paths or districts. District requirement for homeless children that must be carried out is long and costly, and valuable information for those unfamiliar on a day-to-day basis with the obligations of the state regardless of whether budgets become watered down with extra obligations such as those experienced in the wake of recent weather crisis. Red Cross continues to place homeless students under the wing of the local school districts; fuel costs have escalated, putting a strain on previous budgets, which did not consider absorbing extra students. In fiscal year 2004-2005 the total students enrolled into the homeless program for the combined three districts totaled 586. In the aftermath of the storms, Pulaski County received 129 Katrina children, 2 Rita children; Little Rock received 290 Katrina children and 13 Rita children and North Little Rock received 80 Katrina children and 9 Rita children. The influx of students displaced by the hurricanes nearly doubled enrollment in the homeless programs. Initially, the costs to serve are absorbed into the current budget. Additionally, once a child falls into the category of a homeless child, he or she is able to receive services for the remainder of the school year. While no additional funds have been supplied, and legislators attempt to construct and submit bills that will provide relief, districts still must comply with the rules for homeless children and to date haven't received reimbursements or additional funds outside private donations. Requirements include the following:
Under the McKinney-Vento Act, states can apply for federal grants to ensure that homeless children and youth are provided equal access to educational programs. Participating states are required to identify and remove barriers to the enrollment, attendance, and success of homeless children and youth in public schools. Once granted funds, each state must appoint a Coordinator for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, who must on a slim budget, develop and carry out the state’s plan for overcoming barriers. The state coordinator facilitates coordination between the agencies that serve the homeless as well as develop relationships with homeless service agencies to improve the provisions of services to homeless children and families. One of the conditions of the McKinney Act is that each Local Educational Agency (LEA) makes school placement determinations on a case-by-case basis in the "best interests" of the child or youth. School placement could include the school of origin or a school in the area of the shelter where youth are temporarily residing. Under the amendments of the McKinney Act, school officials in making school placement decisions should also consider the wishes of parents or unaccompanied youth. Federal Funding in Arkansas Under the McKinney Act during the 2005-2006 fiscal year, Arkansas was allocated $500,000 - with 13 districts awarded funds. The Little Rock and North Little Rock School Districts received a combined 77,000.00 (2). While funding for educational services is available through the school districts, this addresses only part, albeit an important part, of the overall issue of youth homelessness. It immediately makes an influence and difference in the life of a homeless child because for some part of each day, the child is among other children, has a roof overhead, a hot meal, and is connected socially outside his or her otherwise degrading and frustrating circumstances. Education is an important component to breaking the cycle of homelessness - of reaching out to one child at a time. Discretionary funds provide some additional support, but competition for resources and demands that reach beyond one issue, make it necessary to rely upon ingenuity to meet expenses. The Little Rock School District, in compliance with the McKinney Act operates the BOOST program (Building Opportunities of Self-Esteem through Tutorials). A coordinator serves as the liaison between local shelters and agencies to see that children are enrolled in school, and to provide academic, emotional, and social support to the students and their families. During the 2004 - 2005 school year, Boost reports enrolling 583 children who were staying in a homeless shelter, were in a hotel or motel, or were homeless and doubling up. Providing homeless children with equal opportunities for education, activities, supplies, and essentials is limited only to those homeless youth who have been identified through shelter programs and schools who work with the Local Education Agency (LEA) to initiate service delivery. The BOOST program does not serve to coordinate housing, rather are a first point of contact once the child has been identified as homeless through the school or sheltering agency. Under the state’s plan, the LEA facilitates and oversees the homeless child or youth from the point of enrollment, and monitors attendance, access, and success in school. Meanwhile local school districts are struggling financially to remain compliant despite the influx of students, which continues to grow daily. An article in the Washington Post described the first reluctant budge from the Education Secretary to offer limited relief: "Integrating the displaced students has created costly and emotionally wrenching problems for states, leading education experts and officials says. No Child Left Behind and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, which govern how schools serve homeless children, were not designed with a disaster such as Katrina in mind, they say, and should be adjusted accordingly. For example, No Child Left Behind did not envision a situation in which unprecedented numbers of students moved between states, from private to public schools, and between areas with different academic and teaching standards." (3) Restrictions that consider issues of legal accountability and ultimate approval by congress along with compensation for a job already being performed are pending. (3) Key concerns that stand out in the service of homeless children are the need for transportation and the availability of jobs that enable parents to sustain a home: this would include the ability to pay for utilities and food. Shelters remain a temporary answer and there appears a fundamental focus on the chronically homeless as the city gears up to implement actions toward ending homelessness, and definitively children do not fit the model as described by HUD of the chronically homeless individual. And, while focus groups tend to the issues of the chronically homeless, with youth-specific policies seemingly overlooked, new laws continue to divide and pressure agencies to perform services for the growing population of children. Additional concerns for districts come with the passing of Act 1255/House Bill 1710 on March 29, 2005. It in effect puts further pressure on already under-funded school districts to provide continuity of service for foster children. Among other concerns, the costs for transportation and fuel to comply with bussing students to their school of current enrollment, particularly when movement within and around the foster care system is subject to change. While the bill states agencies "should work together," the stipulations generate a dichotomous and frustrating relationship when additional funding is absent. Under the McKinney-Vento Law, providing continuity of educational service and opportunities is provided for the child awaiting foster care. Those placed in foster homes are not defined homeless in the language of this law, but the new Arkansas State entitlement act for these children mandates the same continuity of service for them. The transitional nature of foster care placement can make them as mobile. No follow up funding appropriations covers costs, so these children are caught between definitions. McKinney-Vento funding does not cover the expense, leaving districts to scrimmage over following the mandate, working out the transportation between themselves and paying for it on already overstretched budgets. For those charged with implementing continuity mandates, it amounts to a political pita; a dry shell without any financial substance - lawmakers having left them with orders to perform and no financial resources behind it. Educating youth continues to play a primary role in helping to break the cycle of homelessness. On this, each agency agrees. How this is accomplished remains a question in a state that offers no homelessness-funding stream of its own to cover the expenses. Community resource programs, education within the schools, opportunities for self-development and community participation are the means for connecting youth with society. There are several key state agencies that oversee the responsibility for children who have been rendered homeless, which can occur for reasons that include, but are not limited to family circumstances such as economic hardship, abandonment, abuse or neglect, and criminal behaviors, albeit under juvenile status. Under the direction of those agencies, units are assigned the multiple tasks of guiding youth within the system of shelter, courts, counselors, education, and essential needs. Apart from, but integrally involved are those charged with monitoring the application of laws and pursuit of legislation as it pertains to Arkansas children and youth. Within the community are the multiple community service agencies that try to catch those children who fall through the cracks of the system; local shelters, churches, and civic groups. Department of Human Services, Centers for Youth and Families, The Department of Education, and Advocates for Youth and Families each play front and center roles in meeting the needs of Little Rock youth and work with Arkansas law enforcement officials. Within each agency are counselors and case managers with the heavy burden of counseling, establishing appropriate shelter, and directing youth on a case by case basis in the direction he or she needs. A young person, once identified as homeless, may be homeless as little as a few hours until returned home to family or for many years a child of the system. Youth Emergency Shelter, (formerly "Stepping Stone") is a component of Centers for Youth and Families and is a primary source of intermediate and temporary shelter for homeless youth. All children who enter the shelter do so with a referral; this may include local police, Department of Children and Families, Department of Human Services, or Arkansas State Police. Youth Emergency Shelter serves approximately 200 children per year in a transitional capacity. Beds for more are unavailable. It presently has a capacity of 20 beds but funding for 11 of them. Youth may stay for just a few hours or up to 45 days, and may return home, join another family member, or move into the foster care. In 2003, there were 280 foster homes available within Pulaski County. In 2005, there are 185 Homes and 588 kids in state custody awaiting placement. Children enter Youth Shelter for a variety of reasons; abuse, neglect, runaways who have been picked up by police, and abandonment, or who become adjudicated from the juvenile court system. In fiscal year 2002-2003, Centers for Youth and Families had to turn away 400 children from its emergency shelter when DCFS cut funding by 25 percent. The cut remains in place, closing the door to additional referrals. The cuts affected the shelter program, as well as therapeutic foster care programs. During the past 10 months of 2004 - 2005, 75 percent of the referrals were turned away, the result of funding. There were 421 referrals made and 307 were turned away. Centers serves an estimated 8,000 children through its combined services: including foster care, learning disability programs, day and residential psychiatric treatments, but does speak to the frustration of trying to place and re-direct children who are referred to them for emergency shelter, particularly when looking at the breakdown of children who enter the shelter. July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, there were 186 admissions.
Recent changes in the legislature have increased the influx of children
into the foster care system. Garrett’s Law - #1176 passed the legislature
March 2005 permitting testing a child’s bodily fluids when suspicion of
drug use by the mother is present. On March 28, Governor Huckabee signed
an emergency clause putting the law into effect immediately. The addition of "provisional" foster care approvals marks another change within the foster care system making it possible for immediate relatives to become licensed and eligible for services. Some children within the foster care system could be placed with relatives, but inability to afford or pass inspections for foster care acceptance make it challenging and children remain in care of the state. Pulaski County has 8 to 10 provisional care providers and 35-40 in Arkansas - the gaps reflecting homes in process of completing the application processes. (*) Preventative measures and services in the areas of counseling, affordable housing, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, employment would contribute to alleviating the disintegration of families before the state steps in to remove children. But the general population has difficulty navigating services and resources contingent upon grants and donations is limited - so little promotion is done to make the public aware that some services, including the 60+ categories of medicade available. (*) Presently, there are no shelter services that can or do receive youth who walk in on their own. Shelters are bound by laws pertaining to minors. An adult guardian must accompany them. However, local shelters do frequently house children who range in age from infant to 18, whose family has become homeless, but programs and support to engage, encourage and support healthy development once in the shelter environment is scarce or non-existent.
The State of Arkansas Homeless Shelters Directory lists shelter service
agencies throughout the state. This report discusses the service
availability for children and youth within the Little Rock area. (12) Dorcus House, a battered women’s shelter, reports that there are many more homeless teenagers than people realize because they cannot get into shelters. Dorcus House shelters women and children who are homeless for domestic violence reasons. Changes within the Dorcus House have opened opportunities for boys twelve to 17 years-old. New leadership and changes within the facility and program structure enable mothers to keep their sons with them. Robyn Manees serves as program director now. One of the first changes she facilitated was the accommodation for teenage boys. Previously, boys 12 years old and up could not stay in the shelter. The program is specialized and intensive, requiring a 14-week participation, during which time the woman does not work, rather spends time working a course of study designed to heal underlying causes for abusive and cyclically disabling situations. This is one of only two programs designed to provide longer-term shelter on site. The Dorcus House is specifically a battered women’s shelter, it sheltered 107 children during 2002 and 62 youth through September, 2003, with an average number of 18 youth routinely staying at the shelter, and the higher increases anticipated during the latter quarter, which begins in September and ends in December, due to winter weather conditions. Dorcus House sheltered 180 children during 2004 and from January to October 2005 - 103 children. There are 60 beds, excluding cribs and couches that will serve as beds in the event of crisis.
In the course of restructuring, the Dorcus House program has opened
another floor to accommodate the sons and is working toward the addition
of more children’s programs. At this time, children are placed into
counseling as quickly as possible, and with older children, interns from
Children’s Hospital are able to do some work with them. Our House is also under new leadership, and while its traditional programs remain intact, opportunities for expansion remain open. In its emergency shelter, Our House sheltered 82 children from December 2003 to September 2004 with an additional 28 children in transitional housing. From December 2004 to September 2005 Our House sheltered 86 children at the emergency shelter and an additional 40 children in transitional housing, representing an 87 percent increase in children sheltered over the previous year. Additionally, in transitional housing, where individuals and families may stay while they work toward self-sufficiency, the total number of men: 15 and women: 25 for December 2004 to September 2005 represented 50 percent of the population; the remaining 50 percent were children. On site at Our House II, the Starting Point Child Care and Early Learning program provides childcare, learning opportunities, and a safe place for homeless children living in both the emergency and transitional shelters. Our House stands alone in its provision of a state licensed childcare facility and goes beyond child care to offer structured early childhood learning. A child-centered computer station and classroom activities involve children in kindergarten readiness and skills preparation through kindergarten level. Extra effort is taken by staff to ensure children the opportunity to be children. Its executive director, Georgia Mjartan emphasizes the importance of youth opportunities while in the shelter environment, and notes her observations of staff interaction with the children, both in the emergency shelter where they receive lots of extra attention when they stand out for doing well in school or creating a special project, and the transitional shelter where they spend longer stretches of time. "We want them to know that while they are here, they are safe and protected: that there will be a present for their birthday and a cookie for doing well in school, so they can feel like kids and experience that." She said, "It isn’t in anybody’s job description to give special recognition to the children in our shelter, but everyone goes out of their way to make the children feel like they have value, are safe, and cared for, and when they leave that they can be successful and have potential." It is stability and security that staff members, from intake forward, try to provide for children during their stay at the shelter. Our House HMIS Coordinator Jessie Goodrum wears many hats when it comes to close contact with the children and their parents. She knows them all by name, the mothers, the children, the family issues, and their individual needs. She points out that the old adage still applies, "Children learn what they live." She recalls four families, all single mothers, with a combined 16 children among them. All of the children were in as babies and youngsters and all have returned to the shelter - the children as teenagers, one as an adult on his own, and another returned as an adult and brought her child with her - a second generation of homelessness. The problem lies in the absence of programs and possibilities for the children and adults for making positive and long lasting changes. She says the Boost program has struggled for several years and offers little help with exception of a few rare events, so there is no access to mentoring, tutoring or extra-curricular events. She suggests creating a program that addresses the needs of the parent and the child as beneficial in breaking the cycle - a program that could be flexible enough to meet the extremes of need: "Some parents just need a little push, others have extreme need - they’ve been through so much themselves that they don’t know how to be parents."
Ms. Goodrum notes that homeless children have no recreational life, lack
enough mentors, tutors, or recreational and sports opportunities. Reasons
range from having parents who work two jobs to support the children to
parents with drug and alcohol issues and no interest in anything beyond
their addictions: in these cases, she says, "The children are virtually
raising themselves. The behaviors they see are the behaviors they will
model, because it is all they’ve seen and believe it’s the right thing to
do. It takes the old village - a grandparent, another relative, somebody
that can help the child get stability."
Women and Children First operates primarily as an emergency and short stay
transitional shelter. Women can stay up to 45 days, with possibilities for
short extensions contingent upon individual circumstances. During 2002,
they sheltered 184 children under 18 years old. New data was not provided.
They serve victims of domestic violence. Salvation Army has undergone changes as well during the past weeks. Once closed during daytime hours, the shelter now stays open to accommodate residents who have no place to go during the day, a problem for those not working. Cold weather approaching, its leaders made the decision to provide a warm shelter alternative. Two shelters, one designated for men, and another for women and children can accommodate up to 40 women and is now sheltering approximately 125 to 175 men each night. Boys 12 and under may stay with their mothers at the women’s shelter, or with mother and father at the men’s shelter. While Salvation Army sheltered few of the Katrina victims, supplies drain as Katrina victims begin resettling in apartments and rentals as it provides household goods; bedding, furniture, appliances, and dishes, as well as personal hygiene items needed to start their lives over. They have no childcare provisions because licensing and other requirements are costly, and not conducive to the program’s mission. Residents may stay from one day up to six months, depending on the family and individual needs. The program is designed to provide accommodations for an expected two-week stay, but as individuals make efforts toward their own solutions; finding and committing to work and working toward solutions for themselves, extra effort is made to help them. Most shelters rely heavily upon federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), which provide a small portion of McKinney Funds, but are tightly constrained, making it unlikely that any of those funds can be used to specifically address youth homelessness. Addressing the needs of homeless prevention is a challenge for the service providers, as the use of HUD funds has strict limitations. Adding to the problem, HUD requires that ESG homeless prevention funds can be used only when evidence on a case-by-case basis that imminent eviction exists, then supporting documents, such as eviction notices must justify the expenditure. Addressing the issues and needs of homeless youth does not fit in the equation and legal restrictions prevent shelters from using funds when families are beyond the crisis point when the reach emergency shelters. Although McKinney-Vento Emergency Shelter Funds (ESG) are awarded to shelters through the state Department of Human Services and the City of Little Rock, those funds are little relative to the cost of agency operation, and local charitable organizations must provide a 100% match. There are no City of Little Rock or State of Arkansas funds available to local non-profits to help access additional funding, private or government. The state of Arkansas has a six point Action Plan for improving access to mainstream resources for homeless persons, including youth. Strategy 3.1 and Strategy 3.4 address the problem at state level; the City of Little Rock could consider joining in those efforts at the city and state level. The City of Little Rock’s report by the Task Force on Homelessness to the City Board of Directors, August 12, 2003, specifically addresses the problem that most emergency shelters are night time only; that is due to insufficient funding to keep the shelters open and supervised during the day. Some existing shelters would keep their shelters open if the city Little Rock would provide the appropriate funding. (3) A recent effort to open a day shelter in the downtown area collapsed before solid agreements on objectives could be met. However, provisions for youth were not included in the formation of the project, and might be better served before the creation of a day shelter that might accommodate a broader population, safely including youth during the daytime hours. Risk Factors & Roots of Homelessness When youth are left to themselves and their own survival mechanisms, they frequently engage in illegal and self-abased behaviors. In 2005, the most recent data reports still come from The Kids Count/PRB Report on Census 2000. It reports that of the 156,534 children counted in Little Rock and North Little Rock 11,481 live in severely distressed neighborhoods. This reflects that 7.3 percent of the 610,518 metropolitan population are children living in substandard or distressed conditions and puts them at great risk for becoming homeless and/or engaging in delinquent activities. The primary characteristics of these neighborhoods were identified by poverty, the tendency toward single female heads of household, the numbers of youth between the ages of 16-19 not enrolled in school and unemployed male adults. "Overall, children are more likely than adults to be living in a severely distressed neighborhood." (7) Inherent causes of homelessness begin early. Far away, in an Australian study of youth homelessness, conclusions point at family breakdown. The study harshly attacks in a three-pronged assault, the parents for shirking responsibility, marriages treated as temporary, and the weakening of closeness and trust within the family unit. Additionally, economic burdens placed upon the family and shrinking disposable income chipped away at the ability of families to sustain themselves. Poverty and ongoing economic crisis often lead to frustration, anger, and domestic violence. The same can be said for the economic condition of many families who find it impossible to sustain homes on even two incomes. "...Many homeless families are invisible to the rest of the world - invisible not because they provoke people to look away in discomfort or guilt but because they look and act no different from the rest of us. These are not the deranged homeless ranting in their portable bedlam, a ratty blanket near a street heat grate." (4) If one becomes unemployed, or either is earning at minimum wage, paying for essentials approaches impossible. We know from previous statistics most often it is the single mother trying to provide for one or more children alone. Additionally, full time employment with many businesses and corporations is less standard than the 30-35 hour workweek. This enables businesses to avoid paying the additional costs and benefits that come with full-time employees. Still, a single mother with two children who works full-time, 40 hours per week, generates an income before taxes of $10,712.00 annually or $892.00 monthly. Deduct the cost of childcare, an average of $90.00 per week per child for basic care during daytime hours - no evenings (this is extra) - and she is left with $172.00 per month to cover rent, food, utilities, transportation, and any essential most would call necessary, such as telephone service or health insurance. On its website, the AFL-CIO provides an opportunity for budget calculations and the costs/budget adjustments for minimum wage workers - and those interested in determining what types of budget adjustments would be required to survive on the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. The option of leaving older children in charge of a younger child puts the family in further precarious conditions. The frustrations that come with financial issues lead to hostility and abuse. In some cases, the fabric of the household unravels under the strain. Youth who are abandoned or who leave home because of abuse, neglect, and other family-related circumstances and issues have little choice but to rely on themselves. Two young women, both sixteen, one having lost a child to Department of Children and Families for neglect said the teens join other non-relative homeless adults, or meet others at the North Little Rock Bridge. They "hang out." Survival for both males and females translates into trading sex in exchange for a motel room, food, or for drugs or alcohol when substance abuse is an issue. A leading issue in the fight to prevent juvenile delinquency and youth homelessness is the environment that propagates youth deprivation. A report by the Annie Casey Foundation found that children living in severely distressed neighborhoods, which characteristically lack supportive mechanisms, solid role models, and access to amenities, such as parks, playgrounds, libraries, and child care that help them learn, grow and thrive are more likely to commit crimes or become a teenage parent. They are found to be less likely to make a transition into the workforce given the lack of "strong community institutions or positive role models." In its data, Little Rock and North Little Rock were shown to have 11,481 or 7.3% percent of its children living in severely distressed neighborhoods in 2000. (6) These are the factors that ultimately render youth, who become adults, lacking adequate social connections, alliances, skills, and resources who become tomorrow’s homeless adults. In a point-in-time study done by the University of Arkansas in 2001, of the 416 homeless individuals counted and interviewed, about 17 percent (69) reported their first homeless experience occurred between the ages of eight and eighteen years old. (4) Overcrowded housing, loss of employment and extrication by a spouse, parent or other relative were among leading reasons for homelessness. Though children may or may not have been with them at the time of homelessness, 57.6 percent of the women reported they have one or more children; and 42.7 percent of the men reported having one or more children. Comparing the data gathered by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2004, using similar criteria for its homeless count showed a 15 percent increase in homeless individuals. Among the women, lack of childcare and job training were cited as leading obstacles to gaining employment. It has already been noted that a continued lack of resources such as job skills and employment are a primary cause of homelessness and the developing risks and cycle of homelessness for youth. Once on the streets, children face a multitude of risks. "Life on the street is a terrible, dangerous reality," Sister Mary Rose McGeady, national president of Covenant House, a homeless shelter for youths, said at a White House conference in October (2002). "Street kids are highly susceptible to being recruited by drug dealers, gangs or prostitution rings who are actually in places like bus stations to look for lost, confused and wandering kids." (7) The root causes of what is called chronic homelessness--the adults drifting perpetually among shelters and haunting the nation’s downtowns--are held to be distressed with mental illness and substance abuse, but the chronically homeless constitute only a fraction of the total shelter population, and children don't fall within their ranks. A typical homeless child is under 5 years old, very poor and living with a sibling and a single mother. The mother may lack education or job skills to lift her out of poverty; often, she has been the victim of domestic violence. Compounding the children's precarious circumstances are two long-term economic trends: stagnant or falling wages coupled with a rise in housing prices. Ultimately, these children are the youngest members of troubled families too cash strapped to afford a place to lay their heads. In an era regarded as generally prosperous, the numbers are staggering: between 900,000 and 1.4 million children in America are homeless for a time in a given year. Most of them are homeless only once, and for months, not years. And while the impact of homelessness on these children is difficult to distinguish from the many other hardships of poverty, there is evidence that homeless children have more health problems, more hospitalizations and more developmental problems than poor children who have never been homeless. Homeless children are more likely to be separated from their parents for periods, winding up either with other relatives or in foster care. Children who experience homelessness are also more likely to become homeless as adults. (8) Nationwide, the laments and problems mirror one another; there are too few resources to meet the needs of the homeless population. And there are too few resources for the homeless population to ease its dilemma - access to jobs, job skills, and affordable housing. The youngsters are simply learning now how they will live and survive later, and adapting to the only way of life they are learning on the streets, without adequate shelter and a nurturing environment. Protective Factors and Current Resources One key challenge many programs have in trying to address the issue of youth homelessness is the laws designed to protect youth. Arkansas requires that agencies who serve youth under the age of 18 be licensed as a child center. Without licensing, or a parent or guardian present, liability rests on the tending agency providing services in the event of an accident or medical emergency. Though youth lack general access to shelters and services on their own, a host of local and community service agencies are in place to act as representatives for children who need access to services. These include education, shelter, and protection from hostile environments, including abuse, neglect and sexual molestation and follow up services for juvenile detainees. Access to these services must occur within the framework of reporting, investigation, and follow-up. Division of Children and Family Services - Foster Care Unit Excluding the number of short term care youth, the Pulaski County Foster Care housed 573 children under the age of 18 in 2002 for long term permanent care, and 1350 youth, including those in short term stays to September, 2003. Presently, there are 570 youth housed in Pulaski County. Funding cuts to the Division of children and Family Services have left its agency strapped for funds - in 2002, twice reduced budgets and hiring freezes were implemented, leaving case managers in the foster care system forced to manage and deliver youth services with fewer hands and fuller re-distributed case loads to provide those services. Juvenile Court Services include: casework, diagnosis and evaluation, emergency shelter, intensive casework management, intensive casework, management for serious offenders, interstate compact on juveniles, prevention-group presentations, residential treatment, targeted case management, therapy, and aftercare supervised (transitional) living services. Juvenile Court sanctions include: compliance monitoring (electronic monitoring) juvenile services, non-secure crisis residential services/juvenile services non-secure day services/juvenile services non-secure, day services/juvenile services non-secure drug screenings. Among the most pressing of needs for the City of Little Rock and Pulaski County is youth shelter, with the more than 2000 cases the county processes each year. Funding continues to be a concern with few dollars and competition for funds. An average case load of 55 juveniles is spread among 18 probation officers. Though Pulaski and Perry counties are combined, few cases originate from Perry County. They continue to process an estimated 2000 cases each year. Presently there are 56 juveniles incarcerated, and the caseload of juveniles spread among 17 probation officers ranges between 50 and 70. As of June 2004, an estimated 950-1,000 cases were being supervised. Carol Wilkins, Chief Probation Officer for Pulaski County Juvenile Detention said there is a clear connection between poverty and the cases of juvenile delinquency. Her office works closely with the school districts and probation officers make home visits to monitor adjudicated youth. What they find during these visits reiterates the links between juvenile offenders and the poverty they endure. Though it is not so in all cases, it is more often the norm that they find challenging situations the children live with. "Ours isn't hard data, it's observation - the majority of kids who come through fall into a low poverty range. Those kids are living in substandard conditions. They may have a roof overhead, but it may have 12 holes in it. And they’re not getting three meals a day - the only meal they get is the one at school." She added that they come with an address and it may or may not be legitimate. The definition of home is questionable. There may be no electricity in the house or food in the refrigerator, or 25 people living there and the child is a female, and someone she may or may not know comes and goes and "shares her pallet," Wilkins said. Citing tough examples, she said it is frustrating; funding is slim, down to two grants, one of which was cut by 60 percent when the money was re-routed to Homeland Security. Funding, volunteer support and connections make a difference in recidivism rates. The Volunteer Probation Officer Program is an example of the differences contact makes with juvenile offenders. She reports a consistent 17-percent drop in repeat offender rates with children who have the opportunity to experience a mentor or supportive adult during their probationary period. The challenge she said is the difficulty in getting larger groups to participate in the program, and must rely on the individual to step forward. Though Pulaski County has more programs to offer youth than outlying counties because of its larger metropolitan status, it has unmet needs. The addition of a halfway home, group home for independent living and chemical free living for older youth exiting substance abuse programs could increase success potential of youth who might do well in structured environments, rather than returning to troublesome situations, lacking the needed guidance to maintain a productive lifestyle. Effects of Homelessness on Children The long-range effects of homelessness on children and youth are described as traumatic experiences with potentially irreparable consequences reaching into adulthood. Though traumatic experiences range from neglect, abuse and domestic violence to more serious and catastrophic events, the condition of homelessness on a child poses serious threats to mental, intellectual and social development and capacity to ultimately function as a productive adult. (10)
The traumatic effects of homelessness on children and youth generated by a
loss of community, routine, security, possessions and privacy creates a
new set of vulnerabilities, including adjustments to shelter living and
potential threats of witnessing or becoming victims of domestic violence.
(10) Stress induced mood changes; irritability, depression and anger pose
longer range threats that interfere with the child's brain development,
potentially leading to substance abuse, poor school performance, mental
health disorders and physical health conditions and ability to form
healthy social relationships. (5)
1. Illness at twice the rate of other children, four times the rate of
asthma, five times more diarrhea and stomach problems Research suggests that steps toward homeless prevention and creating programs active in assisting with overcoming the stresses through program initiatives and good community relationships with mental health service providers could alleviate some of the negative effects children experience as a result of homelessness. At the very least, it is crucial that while we focus on developing programs to end homelessness, we remember we are growing the next population of homeless persons within the walls of shelter environments now. Our eight year-olds will be 18 in ten years, matriculated into the community we hope will have benefited from our efforts. Leading the list for identifying solutions is the need for affordable housing for low-income individuals and the addition of supportive and transitional housing opportunities. None of the reports and leading task force collaboratives has yet included children and youth identifiers or action plans and supportive strategies as a potentially preventative measure in addressing the issue of chronic homelessness. In the 2001 Point in Time Count, 85 percent of the respondents did not have a child with them. One is left to wonder where their children were. The answers they gave may have ranged from having no children to; with the other parent, with another relative, or in state custody. Both homeless count studies reflect a disparity between the numbers of children counted by the school districts as homeless and those identified during the count. During 2001, nearly 300 children were unaccounted for, while during 2004 only 200 of the 500 reported by the school districts could be counted. A combination of factors, including the broader definition of homelessness under McKinney-Vento and the fear of losing custody rights that pose reluctance among homeless women to access services are attributed to this disparity. (5) It is important to point out that McKinney-Vento Law is central to requests for HUD funding and HUD writes both definitions for homelessness for this purpose. One is not exclusive of the other. Agencies applying for funding or developing a task force to end chronic homelessness should not exclude, rather should include homeless youth and children. In light of the findings by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network on the effects of homelessness on children, such as substance abuse, mental disorders and distressed capacity to form healthy social relationships, one is left to consider how many of our chronically homeless are suffering the effects of the cyclical lifestyle. Reiterating the work of the Task Force in 2003, prevention and elimination of chronic homelessness head the list in states that are achieving positive results. In its final analysis, improving coordination, information sharing and networking play crucial roles in identifying resources. The strategies outlined in the present Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness carry out this work and bring with it issues previously identified. It is feasible to consider an important youth component with effective strategies for identifying and acting on youth projects as well as a competitive interest in prioritizing opportunities for developing better communications, programs, and opportunities for engaging homeless youth in positive, productive activities and safe environments. There are presently 565 children reported homeless through the HMIS, the Homeless Information Management System component of ARMIS. The numbers change daily, as the homeless are a mobile population - sometimes moving from shelter to shelter as terms for stay expire, or move on, only to be replaced by others. Additionally, data submission is not always current and is always contingent upon agency reports, not always up to date. ARMIS has 113 participating agencies that include all HUD McKinney-Vento funded programs throughout the state and looks to the agencies to supply accurate and timely information. Creating and implementing effective homeless youth programs is challenging and a problem nationwide. National Homeless Coalition reports that demographics estimate that 21 percent of the homeless population in shelters is youth and under 18 years old. The national average for the homeless youth population is 25 percent. (13) Some states opt for after school programs that work through community partnerships. One example of this is HomeStart, an Arizona based program that provides opportunities for close involvement with the Local Education Agencies (LEA) and children within the Flagstaff school district, and operates under the Homeless Children and Youth, a federally-funded grant authorized by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act. HomeStart ensures the enrollment, attendance, and the success of homeless children and youth in school through public awareness efforts across the commonwealth and subgrants to local school divisions. Local Education Agencies develop customized programs to meet the needs of homeless children and youth in their area. HomeStart funds activities throughout the school year, including summer enrichment programs. Activities include early childhood education, mentoring, tutoring, parent education, and domestic violence prevention programs. In addition, emergency services, referrals for health services, transportation, school supplies, and costs related to obtaining school records may be provided through the program. It collaborates with other federally funded programs such as Title Even Start, Head Start, and I. In addition, HomeStart works with professional educational organizations, social agencies, shelters, colleges, universities, and other homeless programs throughout the Arizona. Local programs collaborate across school divisions and among an array of social agencies. Funding for shelter programs comes primarily from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers four programs aimed at ending homelessness in America. These include Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), Supportive Housing Programs, Shelter Plus Care, and Section 8 Single-Room Occupancy Moderate Rehabilitation. Additional programs fall under housing, job training, transportation, and health care as well as food programs. At a glance these appear to be a largess of funding opportunities, when in reality they are a competitive source of funds, which is ultimately divided up among service providers contingent upon multiple qualifiers, including match funds for some. It is a complex body of funding, which does not come close to meeting the needs of any one agency, who must rely upon additional grants, donations, the United Way, which again must divvy its resources among more agencies meeting necessary criteria. United Way also relies upon the generosity of donations and giving campaigns to supply providers under its umbrella as a participating agency. The creativity, ingenuity, determination, and compassion of Arkansas’ local community servants are at the top of its resource list. Those individuals who serve as educators, bus drivers, cafeteria personnel, church and civic leaders, and shelter personnel take it upon themselves to contribute resources, time and energy coordinating solutions when faced with the day to day problem solving when they come up against it. There are no state or city funds allocated for youth homelessness in Arkansas; there are discretionary funds set aside for school use - none earmarked for homelessness. Yet when it comes to addressing the needs of homeless students, a blind eye is not turned. It may be the school food service providers, such as the Rice Depot who join with counselors to see that children go home with meals for the weekend in a back pack, or transportation that goes out of the way to see that children who are most mobile are collected and returned to their safe place. It may be a civic group or a church organization that sees to preparation of backpacks, school supplies and clothing for children. Endless hours of event planning, coordination, and caring that shelter staff puts into going beyond basic and essential needs to seeing that birthdays, holidays, and special occasions are acknowledged for their children they know would be otherwise without. It is the countless hours that program directors and interagency staff spend knowing what they can do and systematically reaching out for help to do what they cannot. The trenches are filled with hard-working individuals who unquestionably go out of their way to do what they can when they are confronted with the issue of homeless children. The Arkansas Rice Depot serves needy and homeless children in 85 schools throughout Pulaski County to provide new backpacks and ready to eat or simple to prepare foods. They may also take enough food for themselves and siblings during weekends. In 2004-2005 the Rice Depot served 15,000 needy children. An estimated 3,500 were served through the Katrina Relief efforts. Agencies among themselves are powerful referral resources. Centers for Youth and Families, Arkansas Advocates for Children, Department of Human Services, local shelters and schools, The United Way, and law enforcement work largely together to see that children, once identified as homeless or in otherwise deprived or dangerous circumstances are cared and provided for. Among them, they continue to do what they can to find shelter, food, clothing, counselors, and consumable essentials - toiletries and medicine, then hope and a future. The latter, hope and a future are hardest to come by - a sane environment, meaningful education. Educating a young person who has had a difficult and challenging means of survival goes beyond the academics. It must be relevant, a changing of the mind and belief system. Some children have known only homelessness and street survival. They learn early to conquer and survive by whatever means are available. It falls to the counselors, the teachers, the case managers to change the minds when words run contrary to what the eyes have seen and the body has experienced. Sustained effort, consistent provision and planning, and supportive direction make the difference. Shelters offering emergency and transitional care use available resources to ensure children receive benefits available to them. In everyday operations, more could be done to offer positive opportunities for growth and development for the duration of shelter care. These may include substance abuse prevention, mentored relationships, or parenting or caregivers. Creative possibilities exist that could be ferreted out by a focus group. That Central Arkansas Team Care for the Homeless (CATCH) and others are in the preliminary stages of assembling a 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness is a solid start. The mixed composition of business leaders, community planners and service providers demonstrates a commitment to exploring the issues of homelessness and possibilities for funding and supportive services, and strategic development for implementation. Ideally, the team could view the issue of chronic homelessness through the eyes of the children in tow today. If we ask ourselves the question: How can we reach those children today - to give them a hope for a future that they can relate too - opportunities for exploring and enjoying life outside the mental and emotional confines that tear at their development and growth today - then perhaps we can make a dent in tomorrow’s homeless population. For now, they are on the move. All the while growing up, and seeing the limits created for them the limited by shared space, communal meals, hand-me-down clothing. They are learning from the model provided by all of the adults in their path. There continues to be a need for further research, which could best be served by appointing and funding an agency to take the lead in doing so. An exploration into what City of Little Rock and Arkansas as a state could contribute in resources to strive toward a match to funds provided by federal agencies to establish a link between service agencies, youth facilities, and youth oriented activities. It would serve to pool physical, mental, intellectual resources that would establish a clearinghouse or base agency whose interest would be geared toward creating and generating a plan that includes not just study, but action that would serve youth. Presently, resources and energy are slim and spread thin. There are no City of Little Rock or state funds collected and disseminated to address this problem.
Initially there is a need for accessibility to essential services,
shelter, education; and a means for accessing service apart, if necessary
apart from guardianship. Here, agencies are bound by admission
requirements that require the presence of adult to gain entry into
shelters or obtain food, guidance, or education. It would be a good start
for the City of Little Rock legal experts to meet with local shelters and
address the problem of serving those homeless youth who are now outside
the systems that want to help them. Overall, there is still a need for a lead agency or task force to undertake the exploration, collaboration, unification, and delivery, monitoring of such services that can yield results. It is a daunting problem. To say that we can necessarily begin with the tending adults is erroneous and largely akin to trying to teach the old dog new tricks. It is a continued imperative to deliver service for the youth to the youth. The success of youth programs is contingent upon consistency. Strong, successful programs share common ground in that they share political support, emphasis on training qualified program directors, staff, and facilitators, and foundational support. In the short term, Community programs might consider developing a council on youth homelessness comprised of individuals who:
1. Represent the local agencies that address the realities and needs of
youth homelessness, who are able to brainstorm and generate programs and
projects which are consistent with the norms and patterns of Little Rock. All of this could pave the way for effective youth homeless solutions, while funding the programs that are in place. Many service agencies would be eager to try new ideas and programs in cooperation with the City of Little Rock to address the issue and work with local agencies, given an opportunity and supportive funding. While other states may provide effective programs for their area, program replication can be a costly mistake, unless replication of resources and funding, political backing, legislative action and ongoing sustenance can be equally duplicated and assured. The diverse elements of a given area and specifically those relative to homelessness make it improbable that in the long run they can be successfully replicated. The political and bureaucratic infrastructure, culture, socio-economic population, and even weather patterns will affect the need and delivery of the components that make a program run and stay successfully funded. Opportunities for growth as we address the issue of youth homelessness and homelessness in our planning processes continue to include outreach:
Interim Solution Identifying agencies and services that can be strengthened and supported toward the goal of effectively identifying and serving the youth in our community:
Long term solutions continue to require money, planning, and competent delivery. It is feasible to include a planning component that;
Presently, we rely on too few services and programs aimed at prevention and have no services that offer safe-house, safe-call, or non-threatening intervention accessible to youth who may be experiencing trauma at home or on the streets. Nor do we put a service premium on our children who, in shelters or in transit care build walls to shield the pain of uncertainty, isolation, loss and instability. We can and we should. Every single agency leader bumps into legal, ethical, moral, and financial issues in its service to the poorest in its humanitarian service. Looking past the sterility of laws and rules they look into the hungry eyes of children with real needs; it is crucial to clarify definitions of these homeless to ensure they fit into our long-term plans.
P.O. Box 251970, Little Rock, AR 666-7233 Our House, Inc. 408 S. Main St., Little Rock, AR and 302 East Roosevelt Rd., Little Rock, AR 375-2416 374-7383 Starting Point Day Care and Early Learning Center 302 East Roosevelt Rd, Little Rock, AR 374-7383 Union Rescue Mission 615 N. Magnolia, North Little Rock 376-8470 Salvation Army 1111 W. Markham, Little Rock 374-9296 Dorcus House 823 South Park, Little Rock, AR 72202 374-4022 Women & Children First Center against Family Violence Little Rock: 376-3219 Information
Access Arkansas
www.accessarkansas.org
1. Provide safe, secure, and effective individual treatment for juveniles
to enhance integration back into society with the life skills that
promote a crime-free productive life style.
Centers For Youth and Family
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
And, we do all these things in order to create sounder public policies (laws) for Arkansas’ children and their families." www.aradvocates.org
A fact based website addressing the national scope of homelessness, offers
information and statistical data pertinent to youth homelessness.
www.nationalhomeless.org/youth/html
House Bill 1710; Act 1255 - An act to ensure the continuity of educational
services |
|||||||||
| Give | Volunteer | Contact | Partners | Programs | News | FAQ | About Us OUR HOUSE, INC. P.O. Box 34155 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (501) 374-7383
|
Copyright ©
Our House Web template provided by TemplatesBox.com |
Site design and architecture donated by Kathy Barbeire |  |
||||||
