Addressing the needs of the Homeless

In an editorial by The Dallas Morning News, the author addresses the ongoing struggle to meet the challenges of a growing homeless population.  The author makes an argument based on successful implementations in other cities: "Get homeless people into a safe environment and then support their transition, with coordinated social services to keep them from returning to the streets, jail or emergency rooms at taxpayers' expense." The author is anonymous. This immediately worries me because I do not have a way to gauge the level of knowledge the author has on the subject matter. They also produce a premise without giving references to the cities or areas in which long-term strategies have been helpful. Without actual data, my skepticism increases again.

If I put aside the anonymity and the lack of sourced references I to do understand the argument within the paper.  I agree with the author's basic premise. Previous attempts to simply provide Homeless individuals with basic necessities such as simple financial support, occasional meals, clothing and temporary housing is not enough to tackle the larger issues of chronic homelessness. Cities in Texas need to adopt policies that finance multidepartmental efforts to root out the underlying causes of chronic homelessness. 

In order to address the issues of the Homeless, we need to focus on long-term solutions. This requires substantial resources that are dedicated to addressing the mental and physical needs of each individual, as well as skills development programs that are necessary for self-efficacy and economic security. Many people who are homeless suffer from addiction and other severe mental health disorders. People in these circumstances require strong support systems to help them cope with their diagnosis. The Homeless population needs clinical support, access to group support such as 12 step fellowships and mental health support groups, as well as living assistance training for basic self-care skills and job skills training. 

Homelessness is often a chronic rather than a temporary issue in which those who are afflicted also report severe mental and physical health challenges.  We need to focus on getting people out of homelessness permanently to avoid the economic consequences of chronic need, and to give a frequently underrepresented population of our citizenry a chance at a reasonable life. I also see a need for higher quality research inquires with the transient population. A lot of my own opinions are based on my experiences with the homeless and clinical work. One report from Houston gives strong arguments for this need, and provides some interesting data of their own. Homeless in Houston.

Think long term....

Blog Stage 2: Overview of the article, "Is the end near for straight ticket voting?", Feb 10th, 2017 by Charles Kuffner - Off the Kuff P

Hi Everyone! I think this article is an important read because it highlights a feature of the election process that has big implications on candidate selections. I think it also demonstrates a need for clear, easily accessed information about the plethora of candidates on our ballots. Visit here for the full article: Here

Straight ticket voting is an "interesting option" for voters on the Texas ballots. Voters are given the opportunity to select a "One and done" choice for voting preferences specific to either Republicans or Democrats. I voted in Texas for the first time during the November election, and I personally experienced the overwhelming nature of modern voting with candidate descriptions written in legalese, an annoying rotary phone like dialing knob that scrolled through my excessive list of hundreds of candidates, spanning dozens of political positions. About 75% of my way through, I thought "Okay... I see a straight ticket voting option, let's just do that."  I, unfortunately, imagine that other voters had similar experiences.

According to the Author of the article, Charles Kuffner, my concerns are shared by a warning from Texas Supreme Chief Justice Nathan Hetch. Chief Justice Hetch describes the process of straight ticket voting as being substantially impacted by the Presidential candidates on the Ticket. Indeed, further in the article, Kuffner describes a usual instance where straight ticket voting unintentionally leads to good candidates being dismissed, and damn near crazy individuals getting elected. According to the article, this type of voting also drastically limits third party effectiveness and allows the classic two-party system to stay in power.

I see two issues here. One, straight ticket voting allows us to be politically lazy, which results in further polarization of Democrats and Republicans, while simultaneously reinforcing the belief you are either Blue or Red, no other options exist. Two, we need clearer platform information for candidates, and the public needs to be educated on where to find that. We shouldn't have to scour google and filter out nonsense pages from reasonable sources. There should be a clear and politically uncharged resource for voters that spells out candidates beliefs without extremism. To make informed decisions as voters we need information that is as unbiased as possible.

Survey Poll: Are Native Texans more inclined to believe in Texas exceptionalism than non-natives?

Participation Assignment #1: Polling survey. Below is a breakdown of the survey, the results, and conclusions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are you a Native Texan?  Y    /     N  (Circle one)

Directions: Please describe how much you agree with the following statements by circling one of the possibilities below. 

1) If Texas could secede from the United State, it has enough resources to be its' own Country.

Strongly-Disagree          Disagree         Neither Agree/Disagree        Agree       Strongly Agree

2) Texas governmental decisions have little influence on the rest of the Country. 

Strongly-Disagree          Disagree         Neither Agree/Disagree        Agree       Strongly Agree

3) Texas has the best food in the Country.

Strongly-Disagree          Disagree         Neither Agree/Disagree        Agree       Strongly Agree

All questions were answered using a 5 point likert scale, and were given numerical quantities for the analysis; Strongly Disagree being 1 and Strongly agree equal to a 5, except for question two in which the point values are reversed. My assumption was that higher scores reflect higher opinions of Texas in general. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the data breakdown using Minitab Analytical software: (You'll learn how to do this if you take Intro-Stats here at ACC) 

Question 1:  If Texas could secede from the United State, it has enough resources to be its' own Country.

Native Texan average: 2.714

Non-native average: 3.667

Question 2:  Texas governmental decisions have little influence on the rest of the Country. 

Native Texan average: 3.357

Non-native average: 3.333

Question 3:  Texas has the best food in the Country. 

Native Texan average: 3.286

Non-native average: 3.111

Total Averages of all scores

Native Texan average: 3.12

Non-Native Average: 3.37

***One participants information was thrown out. It looked mischievously like an outlier, in which all answers were marked straight through as Disagree. I admit here that the sample was not representative of Texas as a whole, and is at best classified as a convenience sample. Extreme caution is recommended when making any inferences about this data.

Conclusion: I ran independent T-tests comparing the groups for each question. There was only one statistically significant result, and it was not what I expected! You may be able to guess from the data provided, but strangely Non-natives had stronger faith that Texas had the resources to secede from the Country than Natives!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________