THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 15, 1995 TAG: 9510140139
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: Beth Barber
LENGTH: Medium: 62 lines
What should the city do with an $800,000 federal grant for the homeless? The question prompts staff writer Tom Holden's cover story today. But the answer raises other issues not so readily resolved as some advocates would like.
The Homeless Advisory Committee, composed of city staff members and volunteers and organizations who deal with the Beach's homeless populations, recommends that the city purchase a site for a facility for the homeless and contract with a private firm to operate it.
So far, so good: A central location makes sense. The current winter shelter program moves from church to synagogue. The needs of the homeless don't begin and end with winter. Continuity, day to day and month to month, is one of those needs.
Fortunately, research by the committee and others in the community shows that the federal money could more than cover the purchase of an adequate facility, and renovations to it, that can well serve the homeless yet not disserve the neighbors. So much, then, for initial capital expenses.
The committee moved on to what the city should ask of the facility's private operator. Its first recommendation: ``that a facility will be open 24 hours 7 days a week, providing services and housing on-site, with emphasis given to the single homeless population. . . . The center will serve approximately 100 persons through any given day with food, in-house supportive services -and/or referral discernment services . . . Sleeping accommodations will be provided to a maximum of 75 persons on-site. The resident's stay will be determined on a case-by-case basis, up to a maximum stay of 24 months.''
OK. But the reasons for homelessness differ - from the chronic (mental illness, substance abuse) to the ``acute'' (sudden loss of a spouse or a job). Services, facilities, approaches, standards, time limits beneficial to some may not be beneficial to others.
Likewise for rules and expectations of the homeless as well as the shelter provider: The Kaleidoscope on the opposite page today reflects a basic philosophical argument over relative rights and responsibilities of the homeless and society that touches ever aspect of homeless policy.
Like needs, effectiveness of services also varies. Many if not most of the homeless require substance-abuse treatment. Some require constant monitoring; some only a bunk on the coldest night; some only a phone, a shower, breakfast, a bunk and a figurative kick into self-help. All home-less can't be treated the same - which raises a serious question: Should they all be lumped into the same facility? City staff has raised the commonsensical possibility of adjacent shelter and detox facilities.
Then too, services may come free to the homeless, but they cost city (and probably state and federal) taxpayers. If the committee didn't have to consider program costs, City Council certainly does.
It needs to get a very good grasp of which services are essential and effective; in short, what level of services can be provided at what costs. And in the bidding for the facility's operation, it needs to encourage proposals that demonstrate experience, effectiveness, creativity and, not least, realistic expectations of funding and of results. by CNB