California, the largest state in the country, is struggling with a challenging situation of homelessness, in which many people do not have a home they can lean on. It is about the same size as a smaller town in the entire state. The question is significant because it deals with the issue of the adequacy of society to provide its members with a dignified life. The ramifications of homelessness indeed stray far away, just as much. It can diminish the health and life of neighborhoods, how friends utilize public money, and how individuals think and live. Whether we address it or not, our decisions provide insight into our national priorities. The California homeless crisis is a significant concern, and residents have varied ideas about addressing the issue. Some are convinced that the most effective approach is to give people homes or directly assist them immediately. Someone else’s argument might be to have long-term solutions regarding the way we distribute our money and jobs to prevent homelessness in the first place. This paper will narrow down homelessness as a crisis in California. The paper will also highlight the varying ways people attempt to mitigate it, such as the effectiveness of their respective solutions. The main emphasis of the assembly is either on realizing the short-term actions or the changes we have to make over a more extended period to ensure permanent change.
Homelessness in California is a complicated process that involves the state of not having a place where a person can live permanently and feel safe. It is not just about having no place to stay but also about accessing the connected safety, permanency, and feeling of self-worth that the house provides. The plight of homelessness in California is vividly manifesting itself, with tents springing up in the back alleys of the Financial District and makeshift shelters found in the shadows of overpasses. This situation is problematic since it shows that the state needed to provide access to basic individual needs, such as freedom and shelter.
Relating to the greatness of this subject, it underlines the issue associated with public health. People who do not have a house to lie in are more likely to fall sick and have minimal access to medical care. In addition, homelessness becomes an issue for community safety as agencies provide more resources when there is a concentration of homelessness in certain localities. Economically, it is expensive to accommodate people who are homeless but instead being served through health care, from being arrested to social service support. This translates into massive withdrawals even for public coffers generally used for education, infrastructure, and other general benefits.
Proof that homelessness has a deep human side is undeniable. Predominantly, it is the stage at which exclusion is worsened since, after a person has experienced the above difficulties in getting a job, maintaining relationships and being part of society becomes a significant challenge. This can cause social segregation that pushes them away from society even further when there is already a big problem of escaping homelessness.
It is important to note, though, that homelessness is not just a case of individual circumstances but also societal problems like unemployment or a lack of affordable housing. Such instances include too much housing being very expensive, low availability of affordable housing, poor mental health, and poverty in the system. Prices in Southern California are very tough, but a single belated medical bill or losing a job can become a reason an individual may be displaced.
Californian homeless, unfortunately, are on the front lines of suffering; data leaves no doubt about it. According to recent statistics, California has over 150,000 residents who are homeless; this number has been increasing over the past few years. Its impact on society goes beyond the population of those infected, as it covers matters such as adults, families, veterans, and a steadily increasing number of youths. Jobless rates are readable alongside economic difficulties, such as states spending considerable money to attend to people experiencing homelessness by providing temporary houses, health care services, and other emergency matters, just as remedial measures.
People’s perspectives can differ in different societies and social circles. An essential part of the officials’ task is policy and resource allocation; frequently, they clash over how to apportion finances between the current emergency help delivery and the implementation of long-term measures. Charitable organizations, particularly, stress and speak for assistance directly to those affected. They also draw attention to the role of empathy and engagement in achieving results. The business communities may argue that homelessness is a factor that reduces tourism and business transactions in the area. Their concern is believed to do so at a local level.
The diversity of the said views reiterates the complex and ambiguous situation when trying to agree on which has the best idea for solving the problem of homelessness. Encouraging a multifaceted solution comprises alleviating the situation and the cause of homelessness.
The homelessness issue in Southern California is one of the most multifaceted and divisive policy questions, as there are different proposed and critiqued policies in the literature. Martínez (2021) maintains that the criminalization of homelessness only makes the matter worse as it leads to a vicious cycle between individuals experiencing this kind of crisis and the state, which dislikes the homeless people nevertheless. Such criminalization is complemented by Martinez’s “performative productivity,” which describes, as the noun suggests, the behavior intended to be a tool for bureaucracy to achieve sustainable outcomes but frequently contradicts the systemic nature of homelessness.
On the contrary, Duke et al. (2023) suggest realizing the lived experience of homeless people to inform policy. The five suggest a qualitative approach to research based on mereology to discover all the details of the homeless people, which might lead to a higher level of humanity and effectiveness of policies. Such an end requires shifting from temporary aid to a higher-dimensional perception of homelessness as an emotional state of mind.
An example of this can be found in the work of Sanchez and Arellano (2022), which accustoms us to the fact that preventive strategies play an essential role in solving problems. Their study seems to be a cue that the policy should not only focus on the immediate requirements of homeless people but also try to determine and solve the factors that cause homelessness, thereby preventing it.
The interventions in the case go from the immediate to the short-term, like the provision of shelters, to the longer-term, like housing-first programs. Therefore, more starkly, this hinges on structures that perpetuate them; thus, the need to examine policy effectiveness and the advocacy for far-reaching systemic change is glaring. Scholarly critiques of such scenarios unfolded through these experts’ points of view highlight the intricacy of the policy environment and the crucial value of the approaches aimed at both the relief of the symptoms and the removal of the causes of homelessness.
Martínez (2021) shows that what the state calls bureaucracy is just ongoing homelessness accomplishments; he indicated such a mentality as ‘performative productivity.’ This concept is related to the observation that what most workers and agencies of state do (although they do that to decrease homelessness among people) serves to maintain the status quo through superficial stuff, which is mentioned in the sentence above. Duke et al. (2023) contribute another insightful view: the government should facilitate policy initiatives informed by first-hand accounts of people experiencing homelessness. Consequently, what their findings show is that a compassionate and nuanced policy that takes into account the human aspects of homelessness is the most effective in solving the problem, and thus advocating for real change is of the highest priority, one that should be carried out with those under the homelessness umbrella.
Martínez (2020) uses emotional appeals to win people over (pathos) by talking about individuals’ problems, thus arousing compassion in readers. This approach intends to bring these impersonalized statistics closer to the story of struggling outside, which is very emotional. Therefore, it is going to connect much better. Similarly to logos, the most common way of rationalizing (thoughts) is through a thorough analysis of governmental practices, which sometimes work out at best. Duke et al. (2023) find ethical considerations (ethos) as the core issue in their opinion piece on people experiencing homelessness. The moral imperative of exploring the actual living conditions of those people would provide a strong argument and raise ethical questions about the current policies based on facts.
As for my perception of the rhetorical devices, both compositions still do their best by applying a set of logos, pathos, and ethos that evoke convincing points. For instance, through personal anecdotes, Martínez (2021) appeals to the readers’ sense of natural justice and empathy. On the other hand, Duke et al. (2023) have a research-backed approach that lets them be reputable. These rhetorical devices are powerful because they allow the education of the reader and the provocation of an emotional response that may influence them enough to move in a specific direction that would cause a change of perspective on homelessness policy.
Homelessness in California is a burning problem; the root of it is in the systemic issues. The way to solve this problem is multi-dimensional. The analyses by Martínez (2021) and Duke et al. (2023) help us understand the intricacies at different levels of addressing homelessness issues, starting from the government bureaucracy to understanding individual lived experiences. Herein, these deliberations highlight the importance of policy framing that will form the pillars for sustainable solutions rather than short-lived responses to the problem.
For future research, questions arise: What specific policies can accommodate the more complex needs of a homeless population? What does the mass of people in society do that leads to policy and public support? How will it be possible to provide metrics for the long-term effect of policy decisions on homelessness?
Looking into the findings, we can see that it is of utmost necessity to take action in searching for the system’s reasons for homelessness and the policy decisions’ effectiveness. This examination has increased my awareness; after all, I have realized that we need structural change and a deeper understanding of those affected.
Duke, Michael, et al. “A mereological qualitative study protocol for understanding the lived experience of homelessness in California.” Annals of Anthropological Practice 47.2 (2023): 148-161. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/napa.12207
Martínez, Deyanira Nevárez. “Homelessness in Southern California: Street-level encounters with the.” https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deyanira-Nevarez-Martinez/publication/357407411_Homelessness_in_Southern_California_Street-Level_Encounters_with_the_State_and_the_Structural_Violence_of_Performative_Productivity/links/61ccf3c5b6b5667157b4ad57/Homelessness-in-Southern-California-Street-Level-Encounters-with-the-State-and-the-Structural-Violence-of-Performative-Productivity.pdf
Sanchez, Briana, and Esmeralda Arellano. “HOMELESSNESS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: A LOOK TOWARD PREVENTION.” (2022). https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2565&context=etd