planner Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Is a family homeless if they are living in the home of a family member? I just stumbled across a fundraising site dedicated to raising money to buy a modest home for a homeless family. I happen to know the family. I'm bothered by it simply because I don't consider the family homeless. They were living in a 3000+ square foot house owned by family. The family member vacated their own home to allow the family to live there. I believe they lived in the home for at least 5 years and there is no way they would have been pushed out of the home. I think they probably felt guilty and wanted the family member to have their home back, but were they homeless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Are they otherwise unable to make money by working? Disabled? Too old to work? Can they rent? I find it interesting that people now ask for funding to buy a home. To answer your question: I suppose it depends on literal you take the term "homelessness." If they have moved out and are now without a home, they could be called homeless. However, the term usually implies extreme financial hardship due to a variety of problems preventing a person from procuring employment - or at least adequate employment to pay for housing in the area where they live. Some people in the SFO Bay Area work and still cannot afford to rent much less to buy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I guess it depends on their situation. If they have no resources for acquiring a home of their own (including rental property) and the living arrangements they are under right now are temporary, then yes I suppose they could be considered homeless but with temporary housing. Do you know for certain that they have not been asked to move out? Living for 5 years in someone else's home may have made things awkward, at least, even if they weren't officially asked to move out. How are they affording the utilities? Are they paying any rent? Are they in a high COL area? Do they have gainful employment? If not, are they able to get a job? Is there a reason that they can't get work or that the job might not pay enough to cover bills? There are so many factors I would need to take into consideration. Honestly, I would not judge if I didn't have inside information on what is actually going on behind the scenes. Perhaps you do, though. It does seem odd to be asking for money to buy a home based on what you posted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I don't know. I consider my sister semi homeless. She's an adult who doesn't have a lease, and crashes on couches of various friends. She doesn't pay rent and doesn't have a legal right to stay anywhere or an ongoing arrangement with anyone or her own personal bedroom. She chooses to live like this but I consider her homeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planner Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 I guess it depends on their situation. If they have no resources for acquiring a home of their own (including rental property) and the living arrangements they are under right now are temporary, then yes I suppose they could be considered homeless but with temporary housing. Do you know for certain that they have not been asked to move out? Living for 5 years in someone else's home may have made things awkward, at least, even if they weren't officially asked to move out. How are they affording the utilities? Are they paying any rent? Are they in a high COL area? Do they have gainful employment? If not, are they able to get a job? Is there a reason that they can't get work or that the job might not pay enough to cover bills? There are so many factors I would need to take into consideration. Honestly, I would not judge if I didn't have inside information on what is actually going on behind the scenes. Perhaps you do, though. It does seem odd to be asking for money to buy a home based on what you posted. There is much I do not know about their situation. Employment has been sporadic. I don't know why. They are good people and are in needed to improve their situation. I just think calling them homeless when they are well cared for by family is manipulative. In case anyone is interested, they did receive a paid for home and money to relocate. I hope they are doing well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 There is much I do not know about their situation. Employment has been sporadic. I don't know why. They are good people and are in needed to improve their situation. I just think calling them homeless when they are well cared for by family is manipulative. In case anyone is interested, they did receive a paid for home and money to relocate. I hope they are doing well. It did seem an odd reference if they actually have a home to live in and are not being forcibly kicked out of that home. I am glad that they will have a home and ability to relocate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Technically, they could be considered homeless. However, homeless charities will say that if you have a place to stay for free that is stable and in which the needs of your family are met--such as, kids have a bedroom separate from the parents, nobody is actively evicting you, you can afford heat and water, that you should take it. This is particularly in view of the fact that there are people living in temporary shelters due to natural disasters around the country. I can't imagine demanding a different home in those circumstances. That said, yes, according to some views, they are homeless. They don't have their own home or the means to rent one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Edited to remove my post, which was very, very pertinent to the situation I thought I'd read about in the original post but not much related to the actual topic. Ooops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happi duck Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Our family has stayed with family out of necessity and I'd never say "we were homeless". I guess to me the term 'homeless' implies no resources for shelter. Resources would include people willing to let you stay with them. Eta: below Lucy Stoner uses the phrase 'fixed and stable'...the help we received was fixed and stable and is what I was picturing when I mentioned resources. Someone who's never sure where they'll be but *might* have a place to crash, I'd consider that homelessness. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Are they paying rent or in any way paying their way on the home? If not, then they would probably be considered homeless technically, because they are relying purely on the generosity of others to have a roof over their heads. Couch-surfing at friends houses is definitely, for legal purposes, considered homeless. The definition of homeless is actually much broader than the guy living under the bridge, and essentially includes anyone who does not have a fixed address. People in mobile home situations are kind of a grey area in that regard. The family living out of their caravan (travel trailer?) because they got evicted, parking it at local campsites, is homeless. But I'm not sure the legal definition of the family travelling the country in a bus, whether they're included in that statistic. But your case is a grey area, they have a fixed address but if they're not paying rent they don't have any right to that home whatsoever, except out of kindness of their relative. If they ARE paying rent, then they're wrong all around 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Strawberry Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 When we were staying in motels for no more than a week at a time and staying in the guest rooms or on the sofas of family and friends, we were homeless. We had no address and never knew more than a few days at a time where we would be sleeping. We had no place that was ours and no where to go home to. We are NOT homeless now, living in a house owned by my cousin's real estate holding company. We have no lease, no formal arrangement, and the house needs repair and renovations, but we do pay rent, our furniture is our own (mostly hand me downs, but it's ours now). I don't expect to be kicked out any time soon, and we're planning to buy a house, possibly this week. This is temporary, but it IS a home. We have an address and no one outside of our family lives here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Strawberry Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Are they paying rent or in any way paying their way on the home? If not, then they would probably be considered homeless technically, because they are relying purely on the generosity of others to have a roof over their heads. Couch-surfing at friends houses is definitely, for legal purposes, considered homeless. The definition of homeless is actually much broader than the guy living under the bridge, and essentially includes anyone who does not have a fixed address. People in mobile home situations are kind of a grey area in that regard. The family living out of their caravan (travel trailer?) because they got evicted, parking it at local campsites, is homeless. But I'm not sure the legal definition of the family travelling the country in a bus, whether they're included in that statistic. But your case is a grey area, they have a fixed address but if they're not paying rent they don't have any right to that home whatsoever, except out of kindness of their relative. If they ARE paying rent, then they're wrong all around Families living in a mobile caravan (as opposed to a stationary one), would be called nomadic. They have a home, but it doesn't stay in one place. If the caravan were borrowed, whether stationary or mobile, they would be homeless, as it's not THEIR home. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planner Posted October 7, 2015 Author Share Posted October 7, 2015 Oh goodness. I'm realizing that some of you would consider me homeless. I'm living free of rent, including utilities in a home owned by family and have been since July. I don't consider myself homeless even though I'm relying on the generosity of others. I think the main difference between myself and the situation I'm referring to is my own ability to get housing which is high, and this family's ability to get housing which is low. Truthfully, I don't think housing was ever this family's problem. They were well cared for. The problem is stable employment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Homeless families are those who lack a fixed, stable indoor place to live at night. Couch surfing, where a family might be in one room of a friend relative's home with out their own household items or their household items in storage is definitely homelessness. Being granted free, suitable long term housing for free is not necessarily homelessness but it is possible that their arrangement is ending or has ended. Most families can't provide free housing for a whole 'nother branch of the family tree indefinitely. When I was a child were were both homeless and close to homeless at different times. I would consider the following situations to have been when we were homeless,never those where we were not sleeping out of doors. -Parents take us on an extended "camping trip" where we live out of van and a tent and have no place else to go. -living in a partially finished room built on to the side of someone else's barn. Bathroom access in main house and somewhat restricted and dicey. -living in car/van -living in a motel room which was paid for by a charity for homeless families. No, my parents were not addicts or criminals. My father usually held a job or was in school or both. My mom worked but was also disabled, and later both disabled and terminally ill. They had less money and sense than ideal and we did experience a string of downturn stories not at all uncommon in the 1980s as the social safety net started to be dismantled. As is usually the case, there were multiple factors that led to this housing insecurity. We also did not usually have family to stay with as we lived far away. I have had many homeless people (at least a dozen besides those related to us) stay with us at different points. Staying with us though didn't change their need to find permanent housing, as I did not have enough space. Access to our foldout in a tiny spare room didn't mean they ceased to be homeless. It meant they were indoors for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Strawberry Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Oh goodness. I'm realizing that some of you would consider me homeless. I'm living free of rent, including utilities in a home owned by family and have been since July. I don't consider myself homeless even though I'm relying on the generosity of others. I think the main difference between myself and the situation I'm referring to is my own ability to get housing which is high, and this family's ability to get housing which is low. Truthfully, I don't think housing was ever this family's problem. They were well cared for. The problem is stable employment. If this is a stable arrangement where your family are the sole residents, with your own, adequate furnishings, you are definitely not homeless. I have known a few families with similar arrangements. They lived in a houses owned by family and did not pay rent. They are/were definitely not homeless. This is a fortunate arrangement. This is not homelessness. For me, it's the impermanence and instability that are the qualifying factors. I remember having a tiff with my mother while I was staying with her and being in a sheer panic because I had NO WHERE else to go. We were actually staying with my SIL for a visit. If my mother had left me there, I would have been stranded with my baby, no place to stay ( I was sleeping on my SIL's couch), no vehicle to drive, and no money to help myself. The biggest thing was that all of my necessary documents were at my mother's place. If she didn't want me to have them, I would essentially become a nonperson. That powerlessness is scary. It was fine, BTW. She really wasn't even mad at me, and we went home together and I continued to stay with her for a while longer. Then I went back to my husband and we got an apartment and it was all fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie G Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Homeless has a legal definition, by state as well as federal. Ours boils down to person/family is living with extended family member, friend, or stranger, not in own housing. My friend, with a well paid professional government job, was considered homeless when her divorce finalized and she moved herself and children in with her parents, while her new home was under construction. Her children were entitled under the McKinney Vento Act to stay in the original school district and the original schol building for which she was now not zoned, with transportation provided by that school district. A neighbor who bought a house and is sharing it with another family, is not homeless, but the family they are sharing with is....and they do get the same school deal. That's how we've seen it defined. A guy who works for dh has a new girlfriend and she's moved in with him, bringing her 13 year old daughter with her. The girl is entitled to attend school at her old school, which is in a different district. They also categorize her as homeless. Our son in law is a music minister and almost two years ago he lost his job due to downsizing and they moved in with his parents. They filed their annual intent to homeschool and were told they were homeless. In the first case, the mom moved from her own apartment into boyfriend's house, which is larger and nicer than the old apartment. I don't see why that classifies them as homeless. In the second case, it was a difficult time for dd, but in my day we just called that a period of unemployment and family helping family. The house they had been living in was church owned so when he lost his job, they moved. So I guess technically they were homeless. But our daughter moved back home after graduating from college this summer. Is she homeless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom2scouts Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yes, in most places you are considered homeless if you are living in the home of a family member. I think it's stretching the definition of homeless quite a bit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Homeless has a legal definition, by state as well as federal. Ours boils down to person/family is living with extended family member, friend, or stranger, not in own housing. So what about multi-generational households? My mom and dad moved in with my mom's mother. Were they homeless? They lived in grandma's apartment for 12 years until they bought their own house. Then Grandma moved in their house with them. Does that make her homeless? Between returning from a stay abroad and leaving for another country, we lived with my parents for several weeks. Were we homeless? Does it change anything if the situation is clearly temporary? The above was limited to a few weeks. Or, when I move to a new country and my new boss offers me a bed for a few days until I have found a place to live. Homeless? What about if I have a place to live, somewhere else, just not in that location? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 No, I would not consider them homeless. I have lived with my parents at times as an adult, it never felt like being homeless. Their options may be limited because of job stability, but to call themselves homeless creates a connotation of no where stable to sleep, no access to cooking facilities, and no where to keep out the weather. If they've been there five years, it's their home whether they own it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 My friend who is currently living with her mother (and her 4th and 5th grade daughters) in a one bedroom apartment does not consider herself homeless, because, as she says "if you know where you're going to sleep, you have a home." As far as I can tell the housing assistance people apply similar metrics, in that she and her daughters don't appear to be a priority to get any form of housing assistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie G Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Heigh Ho, do you know the reasoning for allowing the kids to stay in their other school? It must cost schools a lot of money to transport those kids 50 miles each way. Families move during the school year all the time and don't get to keep their kids in the same school, even if they provide their own transportation. At least not in my area. So why do kids who are considered homeless get to? I guess kids who are truly homeless can benefit from the stability of staying in the same school so maybe that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomOfABunch Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Legally, we were considered homeless after a house fire. We stayed in a hotel for a couple weeks and then rented another house while renovations were being done. The defining criteria was that we were forced out of our home by the fire. The fact that our insurance company footed the bill for all of that was irrelevant. My daughter stayed at her same school and her transportation was rerouted. County boundaries didn't matter. We didn't try to apply for any aid though, so I don't know about that part of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Heigh Ho, do you know the reasoning for allowing the kids to stay in their other school? It must cost schools a lot of money to transport those kids 50 miles each way. Families move during the school year all the time and don't get to keep their kids in the same school, even if they provide their own transportation. At least not in my area. So why do kids who are considered homeless get to? I guess kids who are truly homeless can benefit from the stability of staying in the same school so maybe that's it. It's because in many cases homeless kids could end up ineligible for any school whatsoever, because attendance zones are being drawn by address and require proof of address. What was happening in urban districts like mine where a lot of kids are homeless or are in temporary situations that sometimes last for years is that the lack of address documentation was being used to force kids out of schools, particularly if the child is struggling academically, behaviorally, or both. McKinley-Vento requires that schools keep up with such kids and take steps to keep them in school. And for kids who are truly homeless in the sense of not knowing where they're going to sleep, school can often be the most stable point in their lives, and knowing they're in such a situation lets help be set up in more substantial ways and build a relationship with the family. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Heigh Ho, do you know the reasoning for allowing the kids to stay in their other school? It must cost schools a lot of money to transport those kids 50 miles each way. Families move during the school year all the time and don't get to keep their kids in the same school, even if they provide their own transportation. At least not in my area. So why do kids who are considered homeless get to? I guess kids who are truly homeless can benefit from the stability of staying in the same school so maybe that's it. It's because in many cases homeless kids could end up ineligible for any school whatsoever, because attendance zones are being drawn by address and require proof of address. What was happening in urban districts like mine where a lot of kids are homeless or are in temporary situations that sometimes last for years is that the lack of address documentation was being used to force kids out of schools, particularly if the child is struggling academically, behaviorally, or both. McKinley-Vento requires that schools keep up with such kids and take steps to keep them in school. And for kids who are truly homeless in the sense of not knowing where they're going to sleep, school can often be the most stable point in their lives, and knowing they're in such a situation lets help be set up in more substantial ways and build a relationship with the family. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I agree that the current accepted definition of homelessness is broader than most people would think. We have had students live with us as a long-term arrangement. They didn't pay rent and I guess if we had gotten really angry, we could have thrown them out, but that would be true of an 18yo offspring too, right? Because they knew where they could expect to sleep until they finished that leg of their education (and until they were ready for their next move), they were not homeless. However, I guess under the current definition of homelessness, they were. What about people who are in highly subsidized housing because of their poverty? Their ability to stay there depends in part on them staying poor. If they get a better job, they will have to find another housing arrangement (which is a disincentive to get gainfully employed). Are they homeless? What about people in transitional housing who could be kicked out if they are caught with drugs, and they are in fact using drugs. Are they homeless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie G Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Hm...that seems tricky. A family who moves and the kid can still go to the old school makes sense as far as finishing the school year but beyond that it doesn't seem necessary. But then again if the kid has no real address, I can see how it might be difficult to get a school to allow them to attend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Homelessness is a tricky word. Like many kinds of "jargon" it means one thing in normal chit-chat, and another thing within the scope of the science that studies it. In this case, sociology is studying it, and government policy is using the criteria they come up with. Both definitions matter. Even people who aren't what we think of as "homeless" are of interest to sociologists if they are not "homed" by various criteria. They aren't in as serous of deep water as the obvious and abject kinds of homeless people -- but they are a group that should be identifiable and may need help. They are important because they are sometimes on a downward slide, one or two steps before the poop really hits the fan. Social interventions often work best before a crisis instead of after it. (Even though, of course, not everyone in the gist scenario automatically proceeds to have a crisis: some do, some don't.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 If they've got a regular and reliable roof over their heads, I don't consider them homeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 What I saw in my school was that there's a big stigma to the word "homeless"-so a lot of families who were in temporary housing, living with family members who were often one missed paycheck from homelessness themselves, and other really insecure situations still wouldn't consider themselves such, report themselves as such, or accept assistance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeM Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, I would consider them to be homeless... the home isn't theirs. I don't consider it much different, logistically, than a family residing at a shelter - at a shelter they have a roof, but it doesn't belong to them (either short-term, by renting, or long-term/forever, by buying/owning). Residing with family, in your friend's case, means that they are relying on the generosity of others to keep a roof over their heads, and that the roof can be taken from them at any point, which doesn't sound like a stable or easy way to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcmommy Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 "Doubling up" is really common to people without a permanent residence and yes technically these people are homeless. In our homeless ministry we cut our population in half from January til march. During that time frame families receive the cash from earned income credit and family members, who themselves are often financially stretched thin, often invite them in for shelter. Its cold so they are sympathetic and the homeless families have some resources, so they can contribute to household budgets. By march the welcome mat is worn out and the EIC is often gone. Families living in our family shelter program do send their kids to the "home" school district. Thank God. It may be the single stable element in the child's life. Further, they receive additional tutoring from School on Wheels to help them keep up. Students who are homeless are seriously at risk academically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.