I just heard about a new development with the homeless problem, apparently the federal government is going to provide a website that homeless people can use to get help with their problems.



Wait a second here, so Mrs. Chao is saying that by providing a website which offers methods of finding jobs and education/training we are helping the homeless? What part of "homeless" does she not understand?

If people are homeless what would lead you to believe that they are hooked up to the internet or would even think to go check out the Department of Labor website? in 2000 over half the country did not have internet access. What makes the federal government think that by providing a website someone that is homeless (read: no internet access) will be able to benefit from it?

Ok, Ok, I know you can get free internet access at libraries and a few other places. But in San Francisco (which has a pretty good homeless program) there are problems with getting the homeless to take advantage of even the most basic services they can just walk up and use like shelter, food, job and social services. How would a solution like a website be effective?

In my opinion this sounds like an incredible waste of money and it is laughable to throw up a website and say you are "doing something about the homeless problem". I could understand a case being made that this might be useful for people "working" with the homeless but that isn't how I have seen this presented so far.

Questions for debate:
1. Could this homeless services website be effective or is it a waste of tax payer money?

2. Rather that saying you are helping the homeless by putting up a web site, what are some real ways the DOL could be helping the homeless if they want to think out of the box a little bit?

Edited for spelling

1. Could this homeless services website be effective or is it a colossal waste of tax payer money?
I think there is a certain embarrassment that accompanies homelessness. I would guess that such embarrassment is a major disincentive to seeking assistance at a shelter.

Internet access is available at libraries. In major cities, there are a dozen or more terminals at the library branches (in Chicago, there were dozens and dozens). The Internet gives a sense of anonymity to the homeless person, which may help them begin to get help.

The website is only a representation of the services available to the homeless. It can be used by the non-homeless to get help for someone they know. It isn't a "click here to apply for a job" site. It's more of an information site than anything else.

It probably is a huge waste of money, but they are trying to help.

1. Could this homeless services website be effective or is it a colossal waste of tax payer money?

How colossal (I ran spell check ) are we talking here? Millions of dollars? Doubtful. My web site costs me $120 per year to host and I create the pages myself. Figure you need 1/2 a web designer to keep the site fresh. Is $25,000 colossal? Or a rounding error?

As for "effective", if $25,000 helps get 10 people out of the shelters and into paying jobs, you bet it's effective. Hard to know until you try, isn't it?

2. Rather that saying you are helping the homeless by putting up a web site, what are some real ways the DOL could be helping the homeless if they want to think out of the box a little bit?

Like faith-based charity funding by the Feds? Yikes. At least this proposal is neutral in that regard.

I think that EVERYTHING that the government can do to move people out of shelters and into their own lives again is a good thing. If a web site helps direct people to new possibilities, then great! The Feds also offer grants and other financial assistance to groups providing direct assistance to those in need.

The "homeless" you see on the streets are there because they WANT to be there. The folks who will be helped by this web site are those who WANT to be helped. There are numerous shelters out there that take in women, women with children, WHOLE FAMILIES. The people at these shelters actively seek help, need help, and want help. What you're seeing on the streets of your fair city are those who do not want your assistance or the government's assistance. They want to be left alone in their pain or happiness or whatever. If they want help, the government is offering one more way to get it. Why slam that?

I believe that this site is mainly for the use of charitable organizations that assist the homeless, and having easily accessible information about federal programs on one page seems like a good idea to me.



The search method says "Find It! By Audience — Homeless & Homeless Providers" at the very top of The Department of Labor website to which you are referring, which indicates to me that they are targeting providers as well.

I would imagine that the Department of Labor's website is commonly used by providers as it is. This is merely a way to streamline the process of finding data.

Questions for debate:
1. Could this homeless services website be effective or is it a colossal waste of tax payer money?

I don't know, but as I said earlier, putting all of this information in one easily accessible page makes sense to me.

2. Rather that saying you are helping the homeless by putting up a web site, what are some real ways the DOL could be helping the homeless if they want to think out of the box a little bit?

I have some ideas about how to help the homeless, but many of them fall outside of the Department of Labor's jurisdiction. This is why private entities have better success, IMO. They can pull resources from many different places including the various federal agencies to help a person rather than passing the person from agency to agency.

1. Could this homeless services website be effective or is it a colossal waste of tax payer money?

As Cyan pointed out, it will be of more use to charitable services than to the homeless themselves, although I'm sure some will use it. It's effective if it enables these organizations to help the poor through the dissemination of information on federal assistance programs and job programs.

2. Rather that saying you are helping the homeless by putting up a web site, what are some real ways the DOL could be helping the homeless if they want to think out of the box a little bit?

Although this isn't exactly hands-on support for the homeless through the DoL, I think it's certainly a step in the right direction; I can only imagine how intimidating wading through all the programs and bureaucracy must be. This gives them and the people who help them an information source-- sort of a springboard to further assistance if you will. The DoL should really only be helping the poor find jobs, for I would think that Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development would handle the other programs to aid the poor.

Maybe colossal (thanks for the spell check ) wasn't the best way to put it, I suppose I was editorializing my own feelings there a bit. I'll amend the question to use a more neutral term.

Hey GREAT post CJ

1. Does this one really need an answer? How silly can you get.
I suppose some of the homeless could make use of just such a site, however upon entering the library would probably find themselves unwelcome if not escorted out of the building.

2. Alright lets think outside the box.
How about when homeless people pass on from this world we use their bodies to feed the other homeless. They in turn will continue to get stronger and healthier, all the while this will help reduce the cost of running these shelters so the republicans and libertarians will just love that.
Now since they are probably hungry they might start hunting down other homeless for the stew pots. Now as horrible as this might sound to some think of the benefits.
Talk about incentive to get back into the swing of society. Homeless persons will probably begin to flock to job training efforts and also seriously begin to improve their self image (shave and a shower). They will probably be much better behaved in the shelters(they really won't want to get thrown out into the wild now will they.)
This will serve to reduce the police manpower need to maintain order--again costs savings folks!.
Also this helps us weed out the nutso homeless because?
Well they're hunting down people silly! A clear sign they are deranged. Therefore this helps us get medical and pshyciatric help to those in need, so we really can effectively target mental health issues involving the homeless community.
Finally think of the impact this will have on Americas Children (who are the future you know, lets help them lead the way).
They will be better behaved because they don't want to find them selves on the street now do they? They will find this plenty of incentive to seek a quality education so they can enjoy good careers.


Finally this: As the numbers of homeless dwindle we can more readily identify members of the Grunge community and help prevent a resurgence of that music.

christopher - your response isn't very constructive. Plus, Swift beat you to the idea 275 years ago A Modest Proposal

I think Cyan is right about the website's focus being for providers and not actual homeless people. In fact, some libraries have had problems with homeless loiterers and have made rules specifying that the homeless are not welcome.

Still no day shelter, Omaha World-Herald
Begging is worry at library, Ann Arbor News

I'm not sure if any of you have ever tried to give computer use instructions to someone who has never used one before, but I promise you it is a patience-trying experience. I'm not sure how this website or the DOL will help computer illiterate homeless people get past the technology gap that already exists.

Of course, I think it's a waste of money, but so are most federally sponsored programs. Then again, I'm a cold heartless libertarian.

Sorry I'm coming late to the party... I think something that's being overlooked here is that "homeless" doesn't just include the people you see sleeping on park benches and in doorways. Homeless means people without homes, and there are plenty of them who still have a place to sleep - a shelter that'll let them stay for a few days or weeks at a time; a home that a church or other charitable organization can provide, again, probably for a limited time; even crashing with a relative or friend. These people, more than the guy on the street corner, are the ones that initiatives like this target.

My girlfriend worked for the National Low Income Housing Coalition this summer (mostly trying to register and mobilize homeless voters). This led me, very tangentially, to this page, where I spent an afternoon reading the Sjoblom story (it's pretty damn detailed). To save you some time, I'll summarize: guy gets hurt at work, can't really walk, has huge medical bills to pay, long delay to get any kind of compensation/insurance/etc. He and his family wind up losing their apartment because they can't pay rent, and stay in a house owned by some church-affiliated group until things turn around a bit for them.

Another thought - the web site isn't only a resource for the homeless and providers, it's one for people who see homelessness as an imminent possibility or even an inevitability. So, yes, I think the web site has a lot of potential to be effective.

As for better ways of spending the money, forget the DoL - how about whichever department or group it is that gives so much money to faith-based homeless assistance groups? Is it just me or is it unfair for the bulk of the government's indirect assistance to come with the condition that you have to fall in with whatever flavor of Christianity (or any other religion, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of the organizations running shelters in this country are going to be Christian) is helping you out?

Welcome AlienResident, and well said.

I'd like to add my weight (not inconsiderable - I really must go on that diet) to your point. I was once homeless for a short time, and I didn't have to sleep rough.

I didn't get into trouble with drugs or the law, nor was I in debt. The home I was living in at the time (student lodgings) fell down (!) (no really - it was weather-exacerbated subsidence), and after that I was put up temporarily with a local family by my college until they or I could find another place. This tok several months - the town was quite small and had two universities, so most suitable accommodation was already occupied.

Now, this was in the days before the internet (well, before anyone in ordinary life knew about it, anyway - 1987), but had it happened yesterday I would still have had internet access, even if only at the college library. Or public library - to which even people who are living rough on the streets can get access.

So no, I don't think that a website for the homeless is automatically a waste of taxpayers' money - that can only be judged after it has been operating for a while.

Thank you for reminding me, AlienResident.

Cube Jockey
This post of mine might not be very substantive, but I've just got to say: there seems to be a bit of an incongruity in your opening post.



It's a waste to provide the homeless with a website because they won't take full advantage of it...so logically, since those same homeless won't take full advantage of shelter, food, job and social services, these expenditures too should be considered wasteful. Instead, your derision of the Department of Labor website seems to be written to contrast with the rest of the government's valuable, worthwhile endeavours to help the homeless.

I don't think that, ideally, there should even be a Department of Labor; it's not within the scope of the Federal government's mandate and the name reeks of a planned economy. But I'll concede: until the states quit flirting with bureaucracy and corruption, it's up to the Fed to keep that safety net running. If the Labor website puts just one producer into the American economy, it should be a worthwhile and valuable part of the whole business.