Gentrification and its Effects on Homelessness

Gentrification and its Effects on Homelessness in Los Angeles County A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Public Administration in Nonprofit Sector Management Copyright Page ii Signature Page iii Table of Contents Signature Page iii Abstract vii Introduction 1 Review of the Literature 3 Defining Terminology 3 What is gentrification? 4 Discrimination 6 Gentrification and Homelessness 9 Lack of Affordable Housing 11 Opposing View 12 Research Question 15 Methodology 16 Research Design 16 Selection of Subjects 17 Ethical Considerations 19 Discussion/Expected Findings 22 Expected Findings 22 Recommendations 23 References 26 Appendix A 28 Appendix B 29 iv Appendix C 33 v Abstract Gentrification and its Effects on Homelessness in Los Angeles County Master of Public Administration in Nonprofit Sector Management In the past two decades, many populated yet neglected cities worldwide have gone through a process of redevelopment known as gentrification. In Downtown Los Angeles, gentrification has restored what was once the ghetto into a new robust life of booming business, live entertainment, urban living, and top dining (Reese et al., 2010). This sounds wonderful, but what happened to the people who once called those streets home? This research explores the process of gentrification and its adverse effects on displacement and homelessness. Moreover, it reveals the true purpose of gentrification and how far government and city planners will go to widen the gap between the workingclass and the middle- and upper-classes. Finally, the findings in this research study confirm many of the literature review assessments, which reveal that gentrification and homelessness are directly related. With that said, understanding these processes opens a platform for discussion and suggestions for inclusiveness and coexistence. vi Introduction A man is driving home from work, a woman is entering a grocery store, and a child is playing at the park. What do they all have in common? They have come across a homeless person asking for help. It is no surprise that homelessness is a growing crisis in America, and it affects everyone. Because of the stigma surrounding the issues of homelessness, this complex public administration issue is often swept under the rug. However, with the homelessness epidemic on the rise, it is time to shed light on the current state of the matter and develop a plan to reduce the outrageous number of occurrences of homelessness in the United States. There are many life events that can cause someone to become homeless, many being personal life choices that have steered these people toward homelessness. Conversely, less discussed are the outside forces that people from low income households do not have much control over. Falling in this category is urban development. In the past two decades, many populated yet neglected cities worldwide have gone through a process of redevelopment known as gentrification. California alone has rapidly gentrified its cities throughout the past decade in order to maintain its reputation of a top tourist destination, which simultaneously increases economic growth. Specifically, in Downtown Los Angeles, gentrification has restored what was once the ghetto into a new robust life of booming business, live entertainment, urban living, and top dining (Reese et al., 2010). Initially, the idea of gentrification is enticing to most, because it is usually masked with embellished words about community revitalization (Slater, 2009). Who wouldn’t want to live in a community that is cleaner, safer, and offers more amenities? Unfortunately, people are quick to forget about the whereabouts of those who once called those streets home. Were they displaced? Did they become homeless? 1 This research explores the process of gentrification and its adverse effects on displacement and homelessness. Moreover, close analysis of gentrification and its dark roots reveal its true purpose and the lengths government and city planners will go to widen the gap between the working-class and the middle- and upper-classes (Redford, 2017). It goes even further to show how the country’s economic and political processes hold the responsibility for the current homelessness problem (Slater, 2009). Finally, the findings in this research study confirm many of the literature review assessments, which reveal that gentrification and homelessness are directly related. With that said, understanding these processes opens a platform for discussion and suggestions for inclusiveness and coexistence. 2 Review of the Literature Since the 1960s, urban development or gentrification has been an ongoing global movement throughout some of the biggest cities of the world (Butler, 2013; Chum, 2015; Danley, 2018; Freund, 2018; Fullilove, 2011; Slater, 2009; Smythe, 2018). However, as most of the literature on this topic indicate, the biggest changes have occurred in the past two decades. Defining Terminology In order to get a clear and impartial understanding of what each term really means, some authors have defined them for their readers. Here are the three most commonly used terms that researchers should thoroughly understand when exploring similar topics. First, what is gentrification? Slater defines “gentrification as the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of a city into middle-class residential and/or commercial use” (2009, p. 294). Next, is the term homeless. Homeless people are the population of people with no permanent place to live. People usually think of the homeless as those living on the streets, at parks, or under bridges. Those notions are correct as these people are, in fact, unsheltered and without a home. However, homelessness is a reality for many more people and families that are not as visible to the public, making the number of homeless individuals much higher and more serious than what society actually believes it to be. Though sheltered, according to Henry et al., people who live in vehicles, churches, motels/hotels, or shelters are also considered homeless, because they are residing in “places not suitable for human habitation” (2018). Lastly, the term displacement is “used to describe what happens when forces outside the household make living there impossible, hazardous, or unaffordable” (Slater, 2009, p. 294). Though closely related, displacement is not to be confused with homelessness as not all homeless are displaced. On the other hand, most displaced individuals are very likely to 3 experience homelessness. Furthermore, as we see later, homeless people can also be displaced. Therefore, the two terminologies are very closely related, yet different. What is gentrification? Although it has been defined above, the phenomenon known as gentrification requires a lot more than just a few words to fully explain. Described by Slater as a “wonderful troublemaker” Ruth Glass, a scholar devoted to social justice, first coined the term gentrification in 1964 to describe the developmental changes occurring throughout run down cities of the world and the underlying purpose for these plans (2009, p. 293). Up until Glass’s coining of the word gentrification, city plans were described in ways to make the projects appear to be a positive or a beneficial change for the people and the region (Slater, 2009). Slater marks Glass’s explanation of “‘Gentrification’ as a concept and a political rallying cry has in many places been swept away by an alliterative garble of revitalisation, renaissance, regeneration, renewal, redevelopment, rejuvenation, restructuring, resurgence, reurbanisation and residentialisation” (Slater, 2009 p. 294). These are all words government officials would use to describe to society of the upcoming changes. Part of the process of gentrification is the demolition of old apartment rentals and the construction of new high-rise commercial buildings, which may seem like a progressive move for those living in the area (Greene, 2014). Unfortunately, this is how capitalist cities are born, by replacing what used to be affordable housing for the working class with corporate buildings. Besides aesthetics, another reason this may actually sound appealing to many is because it gives the public the impression that jobs are forming in the area. However, the reality is that the positions available in such corporate offices are not geared toward working-class individuals. This is not a coincidence but rather a premeditated plan to rid these now metropolitan areas of 4 people who do not resemble that type of middle or high-class lifestyle. This is seen throughout some of the major cities in the United States and around the world. Gentrification is controlled by the government and the private firms they have built relationships with. Together, they seek to rebuild a city that will make the city look rich, all the while pocketing a lot of gain from it themselves. These are the fundamentals of a capitalistic society. Capitalist societies only have one goal in mind, and that is implementing ways to have a constant flow of monetary gain. The rise of tall commercial buildings is only one of many capitalist tactics. Another sure way to have financial growth is the gutting of large spaces of land and reconstructing them into sports arenas. Currently, Los Angeles is building the LA Stadium where the Los Angeles Rams and the Los Angeles Chargers will host their games beginning sometime in 2020 (Clark, 2019). Additionally, there is talk about holding the 2028 Olympics there. The stadium is currently in construction and is being built in Inglewood, California, which has long been a city in need of maintenance (Clark, 2019). Billionaire sports moguls and the city of Inglewood have put over $5 billion into building this mega stadium, which is projected to have a yearly revenue unmatched by any other stadium (Clark, 2019). Though no official numbers have been released to the public, the plans sound promising for the city of Inglewood and Los Angeles in general (Clark, 2019). However, people are quick to forget about the working-class residents. These people have called this place home by finding steady jobs and living their day-to-day lives, but now they are building this mega stadium which has taken up acres of land that once used to be peoples’ homes and family owned businesses. What are these families to do? Suddenly their world has been shaken by forced displacement, and inevitably may even be faced with the unthinkable, homelessness. 5 Toronto has also experienced a similar situation which Greene describes as being: Part of an incipient entrepreneurial strategy to spur post-Fordist economic growth that included plans to publicly subsidize new inner-city development projects, such as a new dome stadium, and the pursuit of mega-events, such as the Summer Olympics (2014). By hosting the Summer Olympics, Toronto could rack in millions if not billions from not only the Olympics themselves, but all the tourism and gambling that it brought along as well. However, none of that money would benefit the low income and working-class individuals who were displaced during the process of preparing for these events. In fact, Greene goes on to explain that prior to the games, the government actually created programs designed to progressively cut back funding into public services such as housing, cash assistance, etc. This meant that people who desperately relied on these services could no longer afford to live in these designated areas. With low income families forced to move out of this sought-after land, private firms were able to bargain and buy out the land from landlords to build entertainment or sports arenas (Green, 2014). However, compared to other countries such as the United States and Great Britain, Canada was only just beginning at building its capitalist society (Greene, 2014). Discrimination Historically, gentrification was developed on grounds of discrimination. Since the twentieth century, the transformations of unkempt land have been on the rise. It is important to note though that this was a time when segregation was fully legal, and people could act on their prejudice beliefs without facing any repercussions. Therefore, neighborhoods were zoned off to unwanted people of different minority groups. Eventually, land laws were implemented to further legalize the division of race and class. 6 In order to really understand the connection between gentrification and discrimination, we must first look at property laws and policies that were in effect during the first surge of gentrification. Housing segregation was very much a common practice during the early to mid 1900s, with millions of similar and even more brutal cases of racial discrimination occurring on a daily basis. Minorities were systematically excluded, and there were a number of ways in which the government supported the continuous racial and class discrimination (Smythe, 2018). Some of the earliest methods the federal government established to successfully execute segregation was zoning the land (Smythe, 2018). It was one of the most important developments during the early 1900s and has had lasting effects well into present day (Smythe, 2018). Widespread racism continued to be a motivation for putting discriminatory views into law, and zoning was just one of the ways the United States government maintained class standards and separation (Smythe, 2018). Property laws, which also date back to the twentieth century, further allowed the government to perpetuate institutionalized discrimination. Property laws, such as eminent domain, allowed the government to buy out privately owned property and use it to rebuild or gentrify the neighborhoods (Smythe, 2018). Unfortunately, this would happen in predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods, causing displacement for many families. Furthermore, if these were low-income neighborhoods, then the elderly and many disabled individuals were also affected. This brings us to the even less discussed topic of age discrimination. It is not news that the elderly population live on a fixed budget, since many do not work. Nevertheless, if they own their property, then that means they have worked tirelessly to gain ownership of that property. Yet, they are expected to just pack their belongings and relocate without any further 7 considerations. This is implied in Slater’s statement when he says, “shocking suggestion that older individuals living alone should be offered state and/or regional government assistance in ‘finding and moving into a new, less expensive residence’ (Slater, 2009, p. 173). Slater further notes that “no suggestions are offered as to how such individuals might be offered assistance to remain where they are at a more affordable rate” (2009, p. 298). There are no recommendations or alternative plans for the elderly. What are they to do or where can they go? It is so irresponsible of any administration to blatantly ignore an entire group of people who compose such a large percentage of the country’s population. Nevertheless, this signifies that city planners already have a set agenda when they begin planning for certain areas, and it explains why there are so many displaced and homeless elderly. After a city has been gentrified, the next quick fix to rid the streets of the unwanted homeless is the criminalization of these helpless people. This is yet another approach the government takes to widen the gap of race and class. Greene describes an incident at “Safe Park”, which was a park in Toronto, Canada designated for homeless people to safely sleep in come nighttime. However, it was raided by police, resulting in the arrest of twenty homeless people (Greene, 2014). The incident caught the attention of college students who found the situation to be shocking and disgraceful, so they protested for the following two years in support of these homeless individuals (Greene, 2014). It was only then that the community finally acknowledged the real issue and actively searched to achieve a lasting solution (Greene, 2014). Vitale also testifies that this was the same tactic used in Downtown Los Angeles’s skid row neighborhood. The Safer Cities Initiative (SCI), disguised as a righteous program, was successful in directing the Los Angeles Police Department to make streets safer by attacking this vulnerable population (Vitale, 2010). In retrospect, it was just another technique used by the 8 government to transfer a group of people out of an area the city already had planned to gentrify (Vitale, 2010). The homeless are harmless though. They are not there to hurt anyone, and they’ve already had to face many challenges throughout their life. The last thing they need is to be titled a criminal for not having the funds or space to live off of the streets. Class, as Slater describes is “the essence of gentrification”, and those who fall in the lower end of the scale are the people who suffer the most (2009). Historically, minorities such as blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ communities have experienced much oppression and that is even translated in cases of gentrification today (Reese et al., 2010). “The boundaries of inclusion and exclusion they established fostered a new social order in the city that defined an individual’s identity first and foremost by class and race, with consequences reaching into the twenty-first century” (Redford, 2017). Thus, as Slater perfectly illustrates, “class inequality is at the forefront of any consideration of gentrification” (2009, p. 295). Gentrification and Homelessness To understand gentrification and how it affects homelessness, it is easiest to look at it in terms of a timeline. Generally, from the 1950’s to the 1970’s ‘the homeless’ were usually described as men “who displayed certain behavioral and social characteristics--disaffiliation, transience, and poverty” (Greene, 2014). Homelessness was not defined in terms of housing, or the lack thereof (Greene, 2014). It was not until the 1980’s that homelessness was actually seen as a direct result of gentrification (Greene, 2014). Greene states that, “in the 1980s activists focused on increased unemployment, weaknesses of social welfare programs, urban entrepreneurialism, and the loss of affordable housing that resulted from government cuts, gentrification, and the unwillingness of private developers to build affordable housing” (2014). According to Greene, numbers were “formally revealed by government statistics, which 9 demonstrated a consistent rise in the number of individuals using homeless shelters in Toronto: from fewer than 2,000 in 1982 to around 20,000 in 1988, and then to over 26,000 in 1990” (2014). Moreover, the homeless population grew to include the youth, disabled, elderly, veterans, women, and families, not just men (Greene, 2014). Once these other groups appeared on the homeless charts, it was clear that homelessness was more than just an individual’s personal problem (Greene, 2014). Clearly, homelessness was an institutional problem which could no longer be ignored. Homelessness has actually increased so much that it is currently perceived as a process that is “human-made” (Greene, 2014). In other words, people do not just become homeless. There could be options for the less fortunate. However, people in power keep the process alive with every decision they put into law that goes against the advancement of the working-class (Greene, 2014). This also shows the direct effects of gentrification on homelessness. If gentrification does not occur, then those from low-income households would not become homeless. Greene (2014) identifies four elements of urban restructuring that plainly demonstrate how homelessness is in fact a man-made process: 1. Economic and occupational change, notably the transition to a post-Fordist economy, characterized by a relative loss of employment in manufacturing and increases in lowerlevel service positions, unemployment, and (in more prosperous cities) professional occupations. 2. Gentrification--"the movement of middle-class households into lower-income and sometimes deteriorating inner city neighborhoods," inducing a dramatic loss of lowincome housing stock. 10 3. Neo-liberal welfare state reform, involving the reassertion of market logics and market-based institutions in contemporary governing practices, including the reduction, elimination, and downloading of state-provided social services, with affordable housing and social assistance of particular relevance. 4. Urban entrepreneurialism, as municipal governments adopted more fully "characteristics once distinctive to the private sector--risk-taking, inventiveness, promotion and profit motivation," which came in conflict with, and took priority over, their function as managers of local services (Greene, 2014). It is no surprise that among Greene’s four elements described above, gentrification is an element of its own. This shows that the effects of gentrification are in fact great, not just something worthy of a subtitle or subtle mention. Furthermore, what is even more interesting, though, are the other three elements, which also pave the way for racial and class exclusion and homelessness. Hence, all the elements mentioned above are interconnected and systematically work together to continually impair the homeless population. Lack of Affordable Housing In order to resolve the issue of homelessness the most rational suggestion would be to build affordable housing for the underprivileged population. However, as discussed previously, class is a big determination when it comes to housing. This is due to the fact that everything is so materialized, and worthiness has become dependent on how much money one has. Slater argues that “these have been lean times for those fighting for affordable housing, protecting against displacement and insisting on viewing housing not as a commodity but as a source of basic need satisfaction, upon which people depend absolutely” (2009, p. 294). Still, much of the literature on gentrification and homelessness insist that what is truly “’needed is a program that 11 can alter the terms of existing public debate on housing, that challenges the commodity nature of housing and its role in our economic and social system, and that demonstrates how people’s legitimate housing needs can be met through an alternative approach.’” (Slater, 2009, p. 307). Slater further debates how crucial it is “’to provide every person with housing that is affordable, adequate in size and of decent quality, secure in tenure, and located in a supportive neighborhood of choice, with recognition of the special housing problems confronting oppressed groups’” (2009, p. 307). These are all subdivisions to consider when planning on building affordable housing for the needy. At the end of the day, working-class families are all humans, and their needs should be taken into account just as seriously as any other person’s, regardless of race, class, age, sexual orientation, etc. Opposing View Many people deny the real purpose of gentrification. Slater sides with Marcuse, pointing out that: In recent literature, scholars have not only been focusing powerful analytical lenses on the life and times of gentrifiers; they have been changing their mind about gentrification, calling it something else, or even disputing its negative effects from the outset. Resuscitating and understanding Marcuse’s crucial arguments on displacement helps to foreground once more the question of social justice in gentrification debate and offers much political ammunition for scholars and activists engaged in the Right to the City movement (2009, p. 294). Here, Marcuse contends the true cause of gentrification and gives a voice to activists. Opposing views on gentrification argue that it is not related to homelessness. They find every reason except gentrification as direct causes for homelessness and displacement. No 12 doubt, mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, and other such triggers have a direct effect on homelessness, but to deny that gentrification has a large impact on such a crucial social epidemic is irresponsible on all levels of the government. According to naysayers: There is a consistent assumption in the literature that gentrification is a direct cause of working-class displacement. While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, it is argued here that the slow reduction of the working-class population in many inner-city areas is, in part, a result of a long-term reduction in the size of the working-class population of London as a whole (by a combination of retirement, death, out-migration or upward social mobility) and its replacement by a larger middle-class population. In other words, the key process may be one of replacement rather than displacement per se (Slater, 2009, p. 296). Those who are pro gentrification will spew anything to get the support of the community to carry out their plans. They will find ways to make it seem like these changes are beneficial for everyone, even the people they look to erase from the area. However, statements such as “working-class owners, including ethnic minorities may have taken the opportunity of rapidly rising prices to sell up and move out” only proves that racial and class inequality are two of the main reasons such changes are set out in the first place (Slater, 2009, p. 296). Otherwise, why would it be necessary to mention class and ethnicity at all? Furthermore, gentrification supporters can be so deceitful, going so far as to fabricate ideas to give society false hope that the issue is being handled. For instance, Slater quoted a critic who falsely stated that “the class structure of many British cities is changing with a growing middle class and a shrinking working class” (2009, p. 297). This statement is outright untrue, but those who are for gentrification give others similar illusions in order to justify and carry out their unethical motives of building what 13 the so-called middle class want. Also, to say that “we find that rather than dislocating non-white households, gentrification creates neighborhoods that are attractive to middle-class minority households, particularly those with children or with elderly householders” and that “there is evidence that gentrification may even increase incomes for those same households” (Slater, 2009, p. 301) gives false hope to low-income households by saying that they can also benefit from these changes, and that a gentrified community could offer more jobs or more income opportunities for them as well. 14 Research Question Statement of Question Does gentrification increase homelessness? Independent variable: Gentrification Attributes: Housing and hospitality Dependent variable: Homelessness Attributes: Factors that cause homelessness (unemployment, alcohol and/or substance abuse, mental illness, lack of affordable housing, etc.) 15 Methodology Research Design To answer the question of whether gentrification increases homelessness, a mixed methods research design will be used to conduct the study. The quantitative research will be administered through an 18-question survey distributed to participants entering one of two Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) district offices. The qualitative research portion will be conducted by means of a fifteen-minute in-person or telephone interview with each participant who agrees to continue with the study. The quantitative research will be administered in the form of a paper questionnaire distributed to every third person who approaches the DPSS Santa Clarita or East Valley district offices’ customer service representatives. This questionnaire will be provided to individuals in person, on paper, along with a pen and a clipboard for ease of completion. This method will be the most cost effective and professional way to complete this research. Each person electing to participate in this survey will have approximately fifteen minutes to complete it. Individuals who decide to participate in this study will not face any consequences by the outcome of this research. Also, participants are welcome to withdraw from the study at any point should they feel uncomfortable, do not have time, or simply do not wish to continue. The first part of the study will provide the researcher with some general background on the participant. These questions allow researchers insight on the participants’ household composition, their income level, and their housing situation. After the questionnaire has been completed, the qualitative research portion will commence. The answers to the interview questions will give a better understanding of whether a participant is truly homeless or at risk of homelessness, the events in their life that have led them to homelessness, and if those events 16 were due to personal choices or caused by the effects of gentrification. The qualitative data will be obtained by contacting individuals who gave consent to be interviewed for fifteen minutes on the participant consent form. Once an individual commits to participating in the in-person interview in the DPSS office or is available via telephone, they will be notified that this portion will remain confidential and only notes will be taken pertaining to the study. In order for the responses to actually remain anonymous, no individual’s names or contact information will be taken at the time of the interview. The interview questions will go into more depth of how the individual became homeless, were they predisposed to this lifestyle, or whether gentrification played a role in their current lifestyle. The data collected by these two interviews will help answer the question of whether gentrification increases homelessness or are homeless people continually in this situation solely due to their personal life choices. Selection of Participants For this research study, the method by which participants will be selected will be systematic sampling. By using the systematic sampling process the chances of potential biasness when seeking participant consent is reduced. Furthermore, systematic sampling will ensure that a high degree of the individuals participating in the study represent the population for which the research is being conducted for. The target population for this study will be low-income families living throughout Los Angeles County. The participants will be chosen at random as it will be every third individual who walks into the Department of Public Social Services district offices on May 6th, 2020. All participants must be adults over the age of eighteen. Also, due to limited resources to translation services, all forms, questionnaires, and interviews will be conducted in English, therefore the participant must feel comfortable speaking and writing in English. 17 The selection of participants for the qualitative research portion of the study will be randomly selected from the group of individuals who consented to complete the first part of the research. On the consent form handed to possible participants, individuals will be able to elect whether or not they are willing to take part in a fifteen-minute in-person or telephone interview. Also, there is a designated space on the form for them to provide their telephone number where they wish to be contacted at should they not be available to complete the interview in person that day. If they select to participate in both parts of the survey, then they will be placed in a separate batch. Amongst this set of participants who agree to contribute to both parts, participants will be randomly selected and contacted. If they are able to wait at the DPSS office where they completed the first portion of the survey at, then they will be interviewed in-person at the office that same day. Given peoples’ busy schedules, participants will also be given an option to return at a later scheduled time that same day (May 6th, 2020). Regular business hours are between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, and the last appointment will be at 4:30 pm. The participant will also be given the opportunity to either return to the office they completed the first portion of the study at or go to the other office, whichever is more convenient for them. If an in-person interview is not convenient and the participant prefers to have the interview conducted by telephone, then an appointment will be made to contact the participant the following day (May 7th, 2020) at the telephone number which they provided on the initial consent form. Given the short amount of time to carry out the research, researchers are limited to the amount of Los Angeles County residents they can interview. It is nearly impossible to interview all needy or homeless individuals, therefore there will be at least fifty people contacted with hopes of having about thirty interviews completed with valuable data needed to complete this study. Though fifty 18 participants are not a full representation of all of Los Angeles County’s homeless/displaced population, it is an ample number of participants to complete this comprehensive study. Ethical Considerations On May 6th, 2020, the customer service representatives at the Santa Clarita and East Valley DPSS locations will randomly select every third participant who approaches the customer service desk to complete a consent form to participate in this study. Prior to completing the consent form, the customer service representative will ask the participant if they speak English, since all forms, questionnaires, and interviews will be conducted in English. Next they will be asked to show their California photo ID to identify their age. All participants must be adults (eighteen and over). No child will be allowed to participate in the study. If the participant has met the age and language guidelines, they will be given the consent form which they will sign and provide their consent in front of the customer service representative. After the consent form has been signed, the participant will take the consent form and the questionnaire and begin completing the survey while they wait to be serviced for the other programs they came into the DPSS office for. Before meeting their worker, the participant will hand their completed questionnaire and consent form back to the front desk customer service representative who will then place all research materials in a folder within a locked drawer to ensure confidentiality. At the end of the day, the customer service representative will hand the folder along with all the research materials to the researcher. The researcher will double check the locked drawer to make sure that no participant information is left in the drawer. None of the participants will gain or lose anything for participating in this study. It is also important to note that the district director and all of the deputies working at the East Valley and Santa Clarita DPSS locations will be made aware of all the procedures of the study from weeks in advance in order to obtain any approvals 19 necessary from higher up officials to conduct this research within the perimeters of these particular DPSS locations. By informing all required personnel, it will also ensure that the process of the study is conducted smoothly without any issues or terminations from the County. As with any study, there are some risks when electing to participate in a research study. However, to lessen these risks, participants will be reassured that the questionnaire will remain entirely confidential, therefore, truthful answers are highly encouraged. Moreover, researchers will not be present while the participant is filling out the questionnaire. By the researcher not being present, it will alleviate any stress or anxiety a participant may feel. With this method, participants will feel compelled to answer the survey questions more honestly as they will feel less pressure and/or judgment. As a result, the findings of the study will be more authentic and have less fallacies. When conducting the second part of the research, individuals will be randomly contacted to see if they are willing to come in to have an in-person fifteen-minute interview or if they would prefer to schedule a telephone interview for the next business day (May 7th, 2020). The interviewer will not voice record any part of the interview. Rather, they will only write down notes to help discuss the final findings of the research. The interviewer will conduct the inperson interview in a closed-door room, and the participant will again be reassured that everything discussed will remain completely confidential and anonymous. Interviews conducted over the telephone will be completed with the interviewer sitting in an office space with no other person around and the door closed. This closed-door policy will guarantee that no other person gains access to the highly confidential information gathered during the interview. Also, at the start of each interview, all participants will be given the option to opt out of the interview at any point, if they wish. 20 Throughout this experiment, all questionnaire and interview data will be securely housed in a lockbox. Any identifiable information will only be used to conduct the second part of the research when contacting individuals to participate in the in-person or telephone interviews. Once this research is complete and all the data has been collected, all papers associated with participants will be shredded and destroyed. 21 Discussion/Expected Findings Once all data have been gathered and the study is complete, researchers expect to find promising strategies to propose to Los Angeles County to solve the crisis of homelessness. The findings will prove the evident need for affordable housing in gentrified neighborhoods. Although some displaced families are able to find affordable housing in nearby communities, countless individuals are still left homeless with no sign of hope. That is why the findings of this study will be so valuable. Hopefully, the results of this research will prompt further experiments to fully help the homeless get back on track and live better lives. Expected Findings The answers to the questionnaire will determine the following: Question 1 will assist in determining if the participant resides in a gentrified area. Question 2 will determine if a person has experienced prejudice due to their sexual orientation. Due to ethical standards, question 3 will help omit those surveys that were not caught by the customer service representative and completed by minors. Also, it will help determine if the person completing the survey is a young adult who is just entering the workforce, a middle-aged adult who has worked before, or is an elderly adult living on a fixed budget. Questions 4, 5, and 18 will determine if a person who is ethnically diverse is discriminated against in their community. Questions 6, 7, and 8 will determine a participant’s household composition. Knowing how many adults and how many minor children live in the household will also help determine how many incomes could possibly be contributed toward the household. Questions 9, 10, 11, and 12 will determine if the participant is homeless or not, where they have been residing if they are homeless, and how long they have been living in that situation. Questions 13 and 14 will determine if a participant is in danger of experiencing homelessness and the reason why they are 22 in that situation. Furthermore, the answers to these questions will prompt the interviewer to ask the participant to elaborate on their homeless situation during the in-person/telephone interview in order to get a better understanding if it is a result of an environmental or personal struggles. Finally, questions 15, 16, and 17 will determine the household’s financial status. The answers to the interview questions will further determine whether a participant is truly homeless or at risk of homelessness, the events in their life that have led them to homelessness, and if those events were due to personal choices or caused by the effects of gentrification. Recommendations According to these research findings and the supporting literature, it is evident that gentrification and homelessness are directly related. Gentrification is unavoidable, but it can certainly be worthy with the changing times. Gentrified communities promise nicer and safer streets, however, during the developmental process of a designated area, city planners must incorporate living spaces, jobs, services, and activities for people of all walks of life. This is no easy task to accomplish, especially in a capitalistic society with private firms funding these projects. Therefore, first and foremost, gentrification must be looked at from a policy perspective, one that is inclusive of all (race, class, age, etc.). With old land laws, such as restrictive covenants and eminent domain, that date back to the times of segregation, private companies are able to find loopholes to move projects along with their greedy and discriminatory agendas. However, with the support of the local, state, and federal governments these types of unfair plans will be inconsiderable and short-lived. Also, collective advocacy and activism are much needed to get the word of urgency out to the public and to get their support to successfully fight this ongoing battle. 23 Once the planning of redevelopment in certain areas begins, city planners and private firms must keep three things in mind: to include attainable jobs, affordable housing, and public services for people of all classes. Working class residents do not always have the time and resources to attain higher education, therefore, they are not always qualified for upper level positions in the public or private sectors. However, they are still competent, hard-working people who have lives to live and families to feed and care for. Therefore, including jobs for people of their stature is important to have in a thriving community. Next on the agenda is affordable housing. This cannot be stressed any more heavily. It is the most logical solution to the problem on hand; build homes for people who do not have homes. Other countries, such as Canada, have recognized and empathized with their homeless population and executed similar changes. Greene justifies this notion by describing the Streets to Home initiative which the City of Toronto implemented to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness (2014). Calling it “the most significant change in this regard” Greene says that with the collective help of the people involved with the “ambitious program” Streets to Homes “dramatically changed the political landscape of homelessness in the city” (2014). Between 2005 and 2008, “the Streets to Homes program had successfully housed over 1,500 street homeless people, giving cause for the mayor at that time, David Miller, to claim that Streets to Homes was helping the City ‘to end street homelessness’; Streets to Homes, he stated, was making Toronto ‘a more inclusive city’. During the next four years, over 1,500 more rough sleepers were housed through the program, and the numbers have since continued to grow” (Greene, 2014). This is a great example of inclusiveness. Implementing progressive solutions like this would help those homeless individuals who are physically living on the streets. Nevertheless, as Greene continues to explain, this solution is not a lasting solution (2014). 24 Though the rates of street homelessness continuously declined after the Streets to Homes initiative, the number of homeless living in shelters steadily increased (Greene, 2014). This only proves one thing – homelessness will not be combatted successfully unless the underprivileged society are given real homes. The only way to achieve this is by integrating affordable housing in gentrified neighborhoods. Finally, continuing to provide financial assistance and other services to these needy families and individuals will further help them maintain their wellbeing and security. Los Angeles already offers welfare programs, which aid disadvantaged families with food, cash assistance, and finding temporary housing for homeless families. Unfortunately, as far as homelessness is concerned, the assistance is only offered to qualifying households with children, not single people. Furthermore, depending on the political party in office, these benefits are always in jeopardy of being cut on a federal level. That is why this is an essential aspect to continue deeming when considering effective resolutions to ending the homeless epidemic in Los Angeles and throughout the world. 25 Appendix A Consent to Act as a Research Subject Dear Participant, We are conducting research to improve homelessness issues in the Los Angeles area. The information gathered from this survey will be used for city planning within the community. There are two parts to this survey. Please indicate below if you are available to participate in both sections of the survey process. Thank you for your participation and valuable feedback. Participant Statement of Understanding and Consent I understand that my participation in this survey and/or interview is entirely voluntary. I understand that I may decline to answer any question(s) that make me feel uncomfortable. I also understand that I may withdraw my participation in the study at any time and that my choice to refuse to answer any question(s) or to withdraw from the study will not result in any consequences. I understand that if I decide not to participate at any point, my contribution to the survey will be omitted from the study. I understand that the confidentiality of my research records will be strictly maintained in accordance with all federal and state laws concerning the protection of human research subjects. I understand that my name and any identifying information will be withheld from all reports resulting from this research. I have received a copy of this document to keep. ___ I agree to only participate in the questionnaire. ___ I agree to participate in both the questionnaire and the interview. ________________________________ Participant's Name – Please Print _________________________ Date ________________________________ Signature _________________________ Telephone # 28 Appendix B Questionnaire Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses to the questions below will help the County of Los Angeles improve future city plans and incorporate better services for the community. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential. Please answer the following questions by writing your answers in the space provided or marking the circles next to the answers that best describes you. 1. What city do you live in? _________________________ 2. What gender do you identify with? o Male o Female o Other (please specify): ___________________ 3. How old are you? o 0 - 17 o 18 - 25 o 26 - 35 o 36 - 45 o 46 - 55 o 56 - 65 o 66+ 4. What is your ethnicity? o White o Black or African American o Hispanic or Latino o Native American o Asian or Pacific Islander o Other (please specify): _________________ 29 5. What is your citizenship status? o United States Citizen o Legal Permanent Resident o Undocumented 6. What is your marital status? o Never married o Married o Separated o Divorced o Widow 7. Including yourself, how many people are in your household? o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5+ 8. How many underage children are living in your household? o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5+ 9. What is your living situation? o Own home o Rent o Permanently living with friends/family with no rental expense o Homeless 10. Where did you sleep last night? o Home o Hotel/motel o Shelter 30 o Place unsuited for daily living (car, streets, church, etc.) 11. How long have you stayed in the place you slept last night? o 1 - 2 days o 3 - 6 days o 1 week or more 12. Where were you staying prior to where you last stayed? o Home o Hotel/motel o Shelter o Place unsuited for daily living (car, streets, church, etc.) 13. Are you in danger of homelessness? o Yes o No o I am currently homeless 14. What is the reason for homelessness? o Eviction due not paying rent/mortgage o Natural disaster o City directive o Other (please specify): ___________________ 15. What is your employment status? o Employed o Self-employed o Unemployed 16. What is your household income? o $0 - $35,000 o $35,001 - $45,000 o $45,001 - $55,000 o $55,001 - $65,000 o $65,001 or more 17. How many adults are employed? o 1 31 o 2 o 3 or more 18. Do you consider your community racially diverse? o Yes o No 32 Appendix C Interview Open ended questions: 1. Do you consider yourself homeless or in danger of experiencing homelessness? 2. In your opinion, what events have led you to your current housing situation? 3. Do you feel like your current housing situation is a result of your personal life choices or is it due to outside forces? 33