University Seminar 101

The first step is to admit that we have a serious problem with homelessness. It is highly unlikley that we can totally wipe it out. There are going to be people who do not care what posistion they are in and frankly like sleeping in a box. But for people that want to change the goverment can help. Dont get me wrong throwing money at the problem isnt going to work, we tried that all ready. In my opinion we need more homeless shelters with stricter rules, more personal councelers for the chronically homeless. Also a wide variety of jobs that have a low skill requirement. This would cut costs and lower the homeless statistics by taking the deserving homeless off the streets.

The chronically homeless keep getting into dept due to substance abuse and mental illness which result in an inability to get employed plus incurring many hospital bills from physical injuries and illness. That is why they are chronically homeless in the first place. Current solutions to homelessness end up costing tens of thousands of dollars each year while failing to fix the problem of the chronically homeless. In his essay, Gladwell talks about a new plan to help the chronically homeless by giving them apartments and close supervision. This places the homeless in a warm environment with constant care to make sure they recover from illness and withdrawal and helps motivate them to do better since they are now more dependent on the care they receive. Critics of this plan often say it takes a heartless approach and focuses only on how to save money. However, the most heartless, logical, and financial way to deal with the problem would simply be to shoot all the chronically homeless and bury them in a mass grave. Another criticism is that it gives special treatment to people who don’t deserve it. The question here is: why don’t they deserve it? It’s not their fault if they have a mental or physical disability that keeps them homeless. They are simply trying to live to the best of their abilities.

“When the welfare mom’s time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yet when the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another” (Gladwell). That solution may not be fair to those who work hard and barely make it from one pay day to the next, but in the long run it would probably be better for the population as a whole if everyone could have a place to live. However, people do not want to address the greater good, because it is “too difficult” to change their ways from what they are accustomed to. “It was easier the old way,” says Gladwell about the public’s attitude toward solutions for the homeless. Simple laziness is causing massive problems. All it would take is a governmental reform to say “Hey, you HAVE to do this. It’s the law.” But, because there are too many politicians who fear change or want everything to be fair, that probably will never happen. In 2007 the Interagency Council on Homelessness came up with “10 Year Plans to End Chronic Homelessness.” It “encourages” cities and counties across the United States to participate in these “10 Year Plans.” Encourage. Not force, encourage. Pretty much, they’re saying, “You can do this if you want to, but if you’re too lazy that’s okay.” Would a Federal action towards the homelessness problem fix everything? Probably not, but could it be any worse than spending millions of dollars on hospital bills that will never be paid by those responsible for them? Maybe, but at least it’s an action. It’s better than staring homelessness in the face and offering it some soup and bread, and leaving it at that.

After Murray’s death, his debt did not just disappear. Where was the $1,000,000+ he owed the government? The problem did not, and will not, resolve itself. Someone needs to watch over it – guide it along – until it is completely reformed. Murray’s death causes the reader to sympathies with those who tried to help Murray, while he polluted himself. Dr. James O’Connell stated in his article “Boston HealthCare for the Homeless Program: A Success Story,” “One of the first discoveries you make is that people have chronic illnesses that have been neglected for a long time…” That is what homelessness has become in our society: a disease.

Yes, the solutions to these problems will be difficult to see all the way through; they might not be fair to everyone, but they are for the good of everyone.

Homeless people live in harsh environments and society needs to find a way to get them off the streets. We need to explore more creative solutions that work for the long term. Gladwell gives us a couple examples but leaves it open to us to find other, more cost effective solutions. For example, in Denver the YMCA had apartments on the upper level of the building. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless took over the upper level and used it to provide living space for the homeless. This program found that the cost of the services and the shelter is “about a third of what he or she would cost on the street” (Gladwell 6). Giving homeless people a place to live is cheaper. Why don’t we capitalize on this? Providing the homeless a place to live is important but they also need support and motivation from others to make positive changes in their life. It is good to “keep services, such as job training, credit counseling, financial management”(Pew Partnership) and programs that will help them become independent. If we help them get on their own two feet then we are helping them contribute to society. Everyone needs a little motivation sometimes. It is just that the homeless population often has been dealt a difficult hand and they need more motivation than others to make better life decisions.

Is it fair to give an apartment to the homeless?
When first learning apartments are just handed to screened applicants, there is the initial sense of unfairness to those who work very hard to get the same (or sometimes even worse) accommodations. Fair or not, in order for a society to be strong together, the stronger members of society have an obligation to help those who, for one reason or another, are struggling.  
Gladwell argues that giving more money and attention to just a few is a tough moral call. With American capitalism, each person is expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rely only on themselves to make their way in the world. This dogma is so strong in America, the majority of the population so fiercely identifies with this notion of self-sufficiency, that providing free apartments and support to a handful of chronically homeless is a very tough sell.
Equitable treatment only makes sense if we accept that all are created equal. However, we know that is not the reality as evidenced by the broad spectrum of abilities from IQ scores to athletic abilities. Some people are mentally and physically healthy, while others are predisposed to mental illnesses and drug addictions. Some are weaker than others, be it physically or mentally, whether temporarily or permanently. To treat all humans with the same philosophy is to ignore reality. Nobody, no matter how strong, makes it on their own steam. Many forget that they themselves receive financial “handouts” from the government. In fact, 50% of MSU students are receiving financial aid, some of which includes housing costs. The argument here is that the student will earn a degree and use it to give back to society. But there is no guarantee of success, just as there is no guarantee that the homeless person will use the new apartment as an opportunity to stay off the streets forever.

What about the citizens actually trying to get along: The single mothers working multiple jobs, the struggling families who live paycheck to paycheck. These people are actually attempting to contribute to our society. It’s hardly fair to give the town drunk free room and board just because he’s costing you more money. Gladwell mentions in his essay about the research of a Boston College graduate student, Dennis Culhane, who found that the most common length of time that anyone is homeless is a single day. 80% of all homeless people at any given time will only be there for a matter of hours before they find a solution, a new job, or help. It’s these 80% who are able to get off the streets because of the help from local soup kitchens, shelters, and organizations like the Salvation Army. It hardly makes sense to take away the help from the people who are usually homeless because of unfortunate happenstance and give it to those who, for whatever reason can’t or won’t get off the streets.

This doesn’t mean these people don’t deserve any help. They need it more than anyone. It just shouldn’t come in the form of a free apartment. A 2007 homelessness survey done by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed that the top reasons for homelessness among the chronic cases were substance abuse or mental illness. It would be much more practical to put money into rehabilitation or special education programs to treat and help these individual cases instead of treating the homeless population like one giant entity.

A small minority is ringing up enormous expenses in bills, while there are honest, hard-working people trying to find a place to shelter their families. Perhaps it is those people that want help and deserve it. Gladwell is not trying to tell his readers that it is those people who deserve the help, but that if the smaller minority is dealt with effectively and correctly, the money that would have been spent on people like Murray would be put to use in better places. The author makes a good point, “It’s simply about efficiency,” (Gladwell). Depending on where and how the money is put to use will determine its outcome. This is a generation of greed, a society that wants to by-pass the situation, to make it easier to ignore. Gladwell is focusing on the social problem and the people aspect, but does he not understand the American way–the history of this nation and the democratic principles and capitalistic views of competition and laizze faire? Surely he understands good ‘ole economics. Issues accumulate, there is no one answer for homelessness. There is not just one solution, no one idea is right. Some ideas might be better than another, but efficiency is the key if it is to remain something the government can continue to fund. As a community, there must be a plan to address the problem and not just put a band-aid on the wound. The country is desperately in need of solutions that will work with and empower those in need to help themselves.The problem is not getting any smaller and a quick and effective solution is desperately needed. Perhaps government is the only solution in such dire times. On another note, the homeless have a close-knit community. They know each other, and respect each other. They help each other. They seem to have figured out what is really important in life. Maybe the homeless know something people with money and homes do not. Perhaps homelessness is a choice made in order to return to a lifestyle that is no longer materialistic.

Treatment plans designed only to save money result in poor responses by the homeless people enrolled in these programs. A lot of money is spent hospitalizing patients who become sick because their substance abuse creates an illness that is not treated. In an essay studying homeless people who abuse alcohol and drugs and their use of Emergency Department services, this misuse of funding is evident. As stated, “Some substance abusers rely on detoxification programs as their only source of addictions care. Again, this demonstrates that detoxification care may provide a limited opportunity to link substance abusers to other services they need.” (Kleinman, pg. 6). Treatment for these drug-dependant homeless people was so limited that they had to rely on just detoxification, which would lead to further relapse. The problem is a burden created by the drug-abuser; this is why the inadequate treatment is only part of the problem of recurring homelessness. Also listed in the article are the reasons so many homeless people become dangerously ill. Many people cannot afford regular healthcare and therefore do not receive regular medical care, causing them to have an increase in Emergency Department services. Many subjects of the study refused to visit doctors and some said they could not fit it in their schedule, and drug-addiction would also interfere. Although it takes a lot of drive to help these homeless people as much as possible, they also must be willing to receive the help they need.

In the case of some, such as drug addicts or alcoholics, they may not care enough about themselves, or others to even be willing to take the guidance of the government. Some would say that the government should rent apartments for them and try to teach them to take care of themselves and hope that they would eventually try to pay for the apartments themselves. If they were unwilling to take care of the apartment themselves, or attempt to pay for the apartment themselves, they would still save money by keeping out of the hospitals. Homeless people who had lived in the streets long enough wouldn’t even be afraid of being threatened to be put back on the streets, where they are almost guaranteed to get sick in some way, whether it be because of the cold, kidney failure, or some other problem caused by living on the streets. “It cost us one million dollars not to do something about Murray” (O’Bryan) “An efficiency apartment in Denver averages about $376 a month, which means that you can house and care for a chronically homeless person for at most fifteen thousand dollars, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street.” (Gladwell p.7) If the cost of housing a chronically homeless person that is not afraid of living in the streets is a third of the cost of letting them live on the streets that would seem like a perfectly viable solution to that person’s problem.

Many believe the way to make this program work, is for the cities to make it harder to get in to the program, that way only help the ones that really want to get better. Perhaps this will make them more able to better themselves through this opportunity. This sounds good, but would most likely result in the chronically homeless people remaining on the streets, remaining chronically sick at a terrible cost to the taxpayers with the end result of most of the homeless ultimately ending up like Murray, dead. So to fix such a problem the program should go on for longer to in sure complete rehabilitation and when it is done then they should have weekly check ups to make sure that the graduates don’t just go right back to there old ways. This will prevent things like Murray’s case happening where they only last a week on their own. It is very possible that many of the chronically homeless will never ‘graduate’ rather they will always be in the program, constantly managed and monitored.

The United States seems to put other things like war and helping the starving in Africa before problems in our own country (not that they don’t need help), but our country gets too distracted with things outside this country that it doesn’t even help its own citizens. We have to realize that these people are not fully capable of helping themselves they need some sort of structure to help them get onto their feet. Some of the homeless do work. Some have substance-abuse problems. Some suffer from forms of mental illness. Every one of them wants something the rest of us want as well: love and understanding. Our country needs to realize that these citizens cant just help themselves out of homelessness they need some sort of catalyst. We don’t want to send them to jail we just want to stress that we are serious about helping them out. . A website explaining how to prevent homelessness says “To close the front door of entry into homelessness, the central challenge of prevention is targeting our efforts toward those people that will become homeless without the intervention.” It says if we don’t just help the people that are homeless now then we need to start helping the potential people who may be homeless eventually.

“More and more communities are undertaking cost-benefit studies as part of their ten-year planning process. The studies which vary widely in scope and approach, consistently reveal the “hidden” costs of chronic homelessness.”(ICH e-newsletter) It is true that chronic homelessness is expensive. It is a good sign to have communities do cost-benefit studies to maximize their resources. It will be interesting to see how these ten year plans work. It seems to me however that if a ten year plan is effective you will be making progress and your maximum cost-benefit would always be changing. If society stopped producing chronically homeless people, eventually we would run out and be required to change our programs yet again to met whatever current needs might be.
SECTION 05

@travis.trandem
It is not actually the “chronically homeless…getting into debt.” nor is every chronically homeless person homeless due to “substance abuse and mental illness.” A good portion of the “Million-Dollar Murray’s” out there is ringing up thousand of dollars in bills (Gladwell), but not every homeless person can be lumped into the same category/stereotype.
Most often, the homeless cannot pay the bill, so the burden is put on the tax payers and “government programs” (Gladwell). We cannot react to homelessness or the homeless exactly the same in every situation. They are unique and so is the situation.
Homeless may not have jobs for a variety of reasons, not only mental or addiction reasons as the author would have you think. The biggest factor in homelessness is the lack of job opportunities and good paying jobs. The statistics support the fact that employment opportunities are on the decline and certainly the wages of many jobs do not enable one to afford housing. Many homeless are employed, but yet cannot afford housing.
Research by the National Coalition for the Homeless, in the article “What Causes Homelessness” believe that the majority of homelessness is caused by the fact that there is a shortage of affordable housing and also programs to assist those who can’t afford housing. Many of the homeless actually have jobs, but at minimum wage are unable to afford housing (Why Are People Homeless?). It is often a matter of time before they lose the job due to the cycle. Many of these working homeless also have children who join the ranks of the homeless, through no mental illness or addictions.
Regarding providing housing and care as a solution:

“This places the homeless in a warm environment with constant care to make sure they recover from illness and withdrawal and helps motivate them to do better since they are now more dependent on the care they receive…”

Just because the homeless are placed in an apartment that is paid for, does not necessarily mean that the homeless will recover as the author of this paper seems to agree. (We can’t make sure of anything–the individual has a big part in the success) He understands that providing shelter for the homeless does not always solve the problem. Counseling, treatment, and self-esteem development are also necessary. If the homeless are provided a way to feel a part of the community and perhaps that they have something to offer, they may be more functioning and productive. Each has a sad story of loss. Loss of love, loss of job, loss of self esteem and worth. People need to know that they are not taking a hand-out, and that the situation will eventually improve and they won’t need such assistance.
“They are simply trying to live to the best of their abilities.” Not every person wants help or is trying “to the best of their abilities.” One has to admit to a problem in order to get help. Most of the time addicts have the biggest problem getting to this stage; it takes reaching rock bottom before they realize they need help. Homelessness is the reality that wakes people up to their behavior problems.
The writer states, “Critics of this plan often say it takes a heartless approach and focuses only on how to save money.” What if there isn’t money? Resources are scarce these days. More and more programs are being cut. Certainly we need to be fiscally responsible and make sure what is being done is actually getting results. The welfare of children and another generation is at risk, and this country cannot afford to look the other way. Tough love just isn’t the answer when people are working to support themselves, but it just isn’t enough! Our government has always stepped in when life, health, and safety were jeopardized, and this should be no exception, but we need to really look at the root of the problem, not just the results of the problem.

“36% of persons living in poverty are children; in fact, the 2004 poverty rate of 17.6% for children under 18 years old is significantly higher than the poverty rate for any other age group.”

“The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. In 2007, a survey performed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 17.4% of homeless adults in families were employed while 13% of homeless single adults or unaccompanied youth were employed. A survey of 24 U.S. cities found that 13% of persons in homeless situations are employed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005). Surveys in past years have yielded the percentage of homeless working to be as high as 26% (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2000)…. (Why Are People Homeless?). ”

Unemployment appears to not be the major factor, nor mental disorder or addictions. The real problem seems to be in the lack of wages to match the high cost of housing. It seems that providing low-cost housing, coupled with a higher living wage might be a better answer to homelessness. Certainly there are still going to be those who do have the mental capacity or who have addiction problems that will still require treatment and assistance, but they are not the biggest contributors to the homeless increases. Lastly, we have to be willing to accept that there are going to be those who choose homelessness and do not want or need our interference. It is simply an alternative lifestyle for them. Everyone has different preferences, right?

Homelessness is an issue that needs to be resolved. Some would say that the United States of America is trying to help other countries before they resolve their own issues. If this is true, why are we spending more time on others when we are not able to support ourselves first? It doesn’t mean we should not help the other countries. We just need to take care of our own problems first. It’s like everyday life. You have to be stable yourself before you can help take care of others. For example, how can you help someone else solve a math problem if you don’t understand it yourself? So how are we going to solve homelessness?
Unfairness is a major issue. It shouldn’t be. When is life ever fair? It isn’t, and that is reality that we cannot change. Take for example the women working two jobs to keep her families from being homeless. They do not receive free apartments like the chronically ill or alcohol abusers. As you see every situation is different. No one situation is ever exactly the same. No individual is like another. Each one reacts in different ways. Some may be similar but nobody is exactly equal. Should we question the constitution then? Since every situation is unique we have to treat every situation in a different manner. We cannot treat the homelessness problem as one unit, and we cannot compare the women working two jobs to the homeless because her situation is different. Who is to judge and determine which of the two has it worse? They need separate programs to help their specific individual needs. Every homeless person may have a more complex or severe problem than the next. Who should we have decide what each person deserves? Right now we are governed by our constitution. The working population pays taxes that the government decides how to spend. My question is why does it seem like we are enabling the homeless? Does it seem like they are working for the services that our taxes pay? Technically it seems like the homeless are receiving more than they have earned. It is unfair to enable them, so why not help them help us?
As mentioned earlier each situation in life is different. This is especially true for the homeless population as many struggle with mental health issues. They each have a different story to tell. That is why we need to help them each individually. We should develop specific programs within each state and town so they can spend money wisely on their needs. The government can not cater to specific situations. Experts in the field need to dedicate their time and expertise to the different individual cases. This is why Gladwell left the options wide open. He wants us to find the solution that will best support individuals in specific areas. Do we have the people with the time and effort to monitor the homeless? Will it be cheaper in the long run? Right now statistics say it is cheaper to help them rather then to let them run up bills. Results are changing and it all takes time. Are we willing to find out and help?

@jeffrey.schmidt5
Your support for Gladwell’s propostion of giving the homeless an apartment is understandable, but you’re making assumptions that aren’t always true. When you say that “it’s a perfectly viable solution to that person’s problem,” you’re not taking into account that most of these people won’t succeed if their just shoved into an apartment, forgetting also the 80% of the homeless who don’t need these apartments and get along by taking advantage of soup kitchens and the Salvation Army.
If the government was willing to try alternative solutions to helping the hard homeless cases without taking funds away from programs already in motions, then I’d say go for it. However, Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness stated, “Our intent is to take homeless policy from the old idea of funding programs that serve homeless people endlessly and invest in results that actually end homelessness (Gladwell).” I don’t believe it’s right to take this help away from people who need it to help the more mentally disabled homeless in order to save money.
The fact is we need to help homeless people endlessly because homelessness is probably endless. Gladwell admits himself “The idea that the very sickest and most troubled of the homeless can be stabilized and eventually employed is only a hope.” As of right now, there is no end in sight to the homeless problem and we shouldn’t remove help from the 80% of the homeless who are only without a home for less than a week at a time, or from people like Carol in Steve Lopez’s book, The Soloist, who find refuge and aid in communities like Lamp in Los Angeles.
You also seem to state that even if the homeless aren’t able to lead a structured life after being given an apartment, that’s just fine because at least money is being saved. Well, money probably isn’t being saved because for every apartment that becomes trashed, money goes into to fixing it. For every mess that’s made, money goes into cleaning it up. Money is only saved under the most perfect circumstances: They prosper under the shelter, find help, and begin to lead structured lives. And there’s only a chance of that if they choose to cooperate. Many homeless want to be on the streets.
Finding solutions is about trying new things. That’s how everything evolves. However, if we’re forced to take resources from current programs that are making a difference in order to try new things, then maybe we should rethink the game plan, whether it means putting less money into foreign affairs or spending less in other social programs. Current help shouldn’t be compromised for the majority in order to possibly save money.

@philip.taylor
Homeless people can face many obstacles on the way to becoming a productive member of society again. Many have mental illnesses which may prevent them from holding on to a reliable job. Some have developed a dependency on alcohol or other drugs, and may require some form of substance abuse therapy to deal with those specific issues. The main problem, however, is the most obvious: they need a place to live! The first thought in a homeless person’s mind every day is most likely “where am I going to sleep tonight?” if this central issue is not dealt with, it will be more difficult to address the other problems that these people face.
In one “Housing First” study, participants with “severe mental illness and who had the longest histories of shelter use in a suburban county” were placed in either a “Housing First” program or continued to be treated as usual. Members of the first group had a higher placement rate than those in the second group, and during the four years in which the study was implemented, the members of the first group were, in general, able to maintain their tenancy status with obviously more success than the second group (Stefanic). Eliminating the stress of finding a place to sleep enables the previously homeless person to concentrate on other issues, such as substance dependency treatment and mental health.

@hannah.stroebe

Hannah
I agree with you in that society needs to get the homeless of the streets. However I don’t think we should only look at long term solutions. If we only focus on a long-term solution when we do finally come up with it the means of implementing it could be completely ruined but such a lack of the here and now that there is no possible way to enforce or implement a solution. I also think that the YMCA program that Gladwell mentions is an awesome idea. But it is not the only idea and it may not be the best. There are many flaws to just giving out free apartments. “We’ve got one man, he’s in his twenties… the first place we had he brought over all his friends, and they partied and trashed the place and broke a window. Then we gave him another apartment and he did the same thing.” Some people will respect it and be grateful of the offered help. Others will refuse or outright disrespect the place. We must remember though about the man who continued to drink and trash his room. There will always be the bad eggs that will rack up the bill by destroying the property or abusing the program in some way. Just think about the people who will cheat the system and intentionally loose their house and place themselves in a situation where they can get a free housing deal from the government. Is that fair for the working American? This brings up the thought of do you still continue to do this but just put rules and regulations on it. For example you must meet with an appointed councilor once a week to check in. Do they need to have room checks? Will these rules drive them back out onto the streets? Will they even feel like they are making decisions instead of having a councilor force them into situations that are not of their choosing? This whole situation can backfire by making people so dependent on a gift. As you say we want them to become independent. To make decisions on their own to live structures of what we perceive as acceptable in society. Giving them a place is cheaper but is it the right thing to do?

Pierce Ware
The amount of money that is spent on the people like Murray is too high and that does raises the question is people like Murray that worth spending all that money. Yes if we focused our time on the ones who need it and who have a chance then most likely yes we would have a lot more success stories about how the program helped and is working but on the same hand who is to decide who needs the most help how can we determine if someone will succeed at the programs I think that yes we are spending all this money on people like Murray that seem to just be wasting all of that money I mean when someone cost a “… million dollars not to do something about Murray,” (Gladwell) that’s when it seems that we are spending way to much money to help someone that cant be helped. But back to the programs yes I feel that they should make it a little harder to get in to them so those that really want to better themselves have more of a chance to but at the same time we should also have the programs that let everyone in so that maybe out of these programs we can at least get people who want to better themselves. The thing is that by just having these programs they are helping everyone from the people like Murray that cant be helped to the people that really try so that they can succeed and pass the program but the ones that pass are not talked about because they are no longer an issue.
Really all that this comes down to is that the only way to clean up the streets is to make the homeless go to the programs don’t give them a choice but that would be taking away there freewill and that is where I agree with you maybe the homeless are happy where they are or at least some of them. Maybe they don’t want to be helped which is why yes we still should have the programs but to trick them in to going or to make them go only creates situation like Murray’s where we are spending millions of dollars on some one who doesn’t want to be helped and that way the ones that what to be helped will get the chance to.
Some are mentally ill and some have drug addictions should they all be in the same program? I think that they could easily make deviations in the programs that are running now to hit on all those key areas like the people who are there to help the mental ill get back on there feet and the same for the drug addicts and same for all the other reasons people are homeless. But I do agree on that maybe the homeless like their life style and like not having to worry about the materialistic things. And that is why I think we should have the programs there but leave it up to them if they want to go to them.
@siera.mattix

Most people think of homelessness as alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, and people who are generally looked down upon by society, much like the description of Skid Row in The Soloist. “A Vietnam or World War II amputee can fall out of his wheelchair in the middle of the street, a filthy colostomy bag next to him, and people will walk by as if he isn’t there. An insane man walks naked through the rubble and few people take notice. Heroin addicts pump needles into their arms without a glance toward the Central District police headquarters” (Lopez 123). These people do make up a portion of the homeless population, whether it is due to the expense of their addictions or it is because they cannot hold a job. Prostitution is generally seen among the homeless because it is due to the fact that they need a form of income and they get it through prostitution. Despite what many people think about these people, there are many who may want to kick the habit or live a more productive and valuable life. However, for these people rehabilitation can be very expensive and therefore is not an option. Thankfully there are programs like Freedom Ranch Maui Incorporated. This place is “for those at risk, afflicted with alcoholism, addictions, and other life-controlling problems, including homelessness, abuse, and imprisonment” (Freedom Ranch Maui Incorporated). This is wonderful for those who want the help and want the place to go; however, it is not available everywhere. Freedom Ranch Maui is only in one city in Ohio, but would be beneficial everywhere there is a homeless problem. That goes for many programs. If there were only more of them and more variety of types then maybe there would be less people in the streets and more people housed and seeking improvement in their lives.

The center for music psychotherapy and family therapy supports the thought of music soothing the savage beast. The site says that music helps you understand your feelings and expressing them in a way that words can’t describe. This aspect helps Nathanial reason with Mr. Lopez because while he plays he thinks clearer than when he is not. Music represents an undying part of society a piece of history that has stood the very test of time and he relates to this music in a way that Beethoven had a disability. Beethoven was deaf and slightly schizophrenic so while he couldn’t hear his works aloud he could hear them in his mind and managed to get his every thought and world of emotion out on staff for the world to take in and think about. Nathanial draws much of his inspiration from him and others like him which draws him to the career thought of music therapy, this is a good goal for him because he already knows how to help himself in this way and that makes him want to help others in ways they never thought to help him.
In conclusion many things can heal the soul but everyone is different so we as a society need to be patient and thought full of their needs. All they really need is a friend to talk to when they are having a bad day or even someone to share things with when they have everything going for them. They need someone to believe in them which show that a person with a mental instability is just like everyone else they just need more time to communicate where the starting point is.