Helping the Homeless
P1. No matter how much money is available, no one will be entitled to a home without other problems along the way. In this case, many groups have an idea in order to get the homeless off the streets, but the mechanics behind it are not clear. Even though we are able to see and realize the passion people have in order to help this obstacle, they do not fully understand the problem altogether. By helping these homeless people from living on the streets, it involves more than building a few homes. That is only the first step to rebuild the homeless. Yes, getting them in a stabilized home will make their lives better, but from there, there is still more to be done. These people are affected with mental illnesses, life-threatening diseases, and most commonly, traumatic brain injury. Without the help of others, they cannot help themselves. In both articles the problem is realized, but the idea behind it is not fully processed to its capability.
P2. As much as everyone wants to help, we cannot overlook the fact that the homelessness’s injury causes them all of this trouble. David Bornstein points out that the “estimated 40 percent of the long-term homeless people he’s met had such a brain injury.” With this setback, it causes mood swings and behaviors leaving anybody with this complication without a job. This is where the result of becoming homeless occurs. In order to help effectively, people as a whole have to gain the understanding of one’s root to homelessness. Without knowing what they went through to get where they are, they will not know how to help to get them back on track.
P3. If the construction of building homes takes place, we need to realize people with traumatic brain injury have “difficulty to maintaining housing.” Meaning, once they are in a home, they will not necessarily be able to take cares of oneself. There are a handful of homeless that have mental illnesses and life-threatening diseases which require the care from others. If we want them to have the ability to stabilize their life, many people will need to be involved to get it done. This is their chance to rebuild their life, and they need to get it done correctly. Gradually, they will grasp the understanding on how to be responsible and live on their own.
P4. Some will argue that this money is being wasted to be put into something that requires so much work. On the other hand, helping and putting the money into these organizations will help many people around the world. It will give them a new start and they will be able to build their life back as they left it. Many of these organizations are being recognized and spread from city to city, resulting in many volunteers and donations, housing many homeless along the way. Besides the fact of helping people fixes their life, this “permanent supportive housing” will also be good for society. If more people are off the streets, there are less, noninsured hospital visits and criminal activity taking place, saving the society as a whole money. There may be money being spent to get this improvement done, but there is a gain to it.
P5. Once the works begins, there will be no visible outcome from spending this vigorous amount of money towards housing, but in the long run, it is totally worth. Not only will it be helping people get into a home, but giving them the opportunity to set their life back, creating the goodness in it all. It sounds counterintuitive to help the homeless try to get back on their feet but only give them a home, and nothing else to build their life back up. Some have been struggling for months and even years, not knowing how to use any other skills so by teaching them useful information, they will not end back on the streets. These organizations are not wasting any money or time by helping thousands of homeless people not only get off the streets, but to teach them how to live an everyday, normal life. Just because it does not directly help you, does not mean it does not helps others.
Barnes, Sean M., Leah M. Russell, Trisha A. Hostetter, Jeri E. Forster, Maria D. Devore, and Lisa A. Brenner. “Characteristics of Traumatic Brain Injuries Sustained Among Veterans Seeking Homeless Services.” Project MUSE. Meharry Medical College, 1 Feb. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.
Bornstein, David. “A Plan to Make Homelesss History.” Opinionator. The New York Times, 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2017.
Bornstein, David. “The Street-level Solution.” Opinionator. The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2017.
Topolovec-Vranic, Jane, Naomi Ennis, Angela Colantonio, and Michael D. Cusimano. “Traumatic Brain Injury among People Who Are Homeless: A Systematic Review.” BMC Public Health. N.p., 8 Dec. 2012. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.
I’m glad you asked for help on this post, Dunkin. You have a severe case of “the wordies.” Your sentences spend twice the words they need, the overall effect of which is to exhaust readers. Assuming you do so without noticing it, I’ll try to demonstrate radical cuts so you can begin to consciously edit your own work as you write. Let’s begin.
If people are entitled to a home, it isn’t because of money, Dunkin. But I understand what you mean. The way to say it is that money won’t solve the problems of the homeless. Let’s eliminate “who gives” the money, the entitlement, and the giving. “No amount of money will solve the problems of the homeless, even if they’re given homes.”
I don’t see the point of “in this case.” And the meaning of “it” is unclear. A simpler sentence would be easier to follow. “Many groups get the homeless off the street, but can’t keep them from returning.”
Once you establish in the second sentence that “many groups” are doing the work, stick with them. Don’t switch to what “we” do. “They have the passion to help, but they do not fully understand the solution.”
This is classic over-writing. Eliminate “in order to” every time you’re tempted to use it. And again ask yourself what “it” means. Usually, “it” is your subject. “It [the solution] involves more than building a few homes.”
Connect this to the previous sentence.
You’ve already said that getting the homeless into homes is just the first step, which of course means there are other steps, which of course means there is more to be done.
You’re right to identify the problems that keep the homeless from remaining in stable homes. All of this is essential.
Sounds wordy, but this is actually an elegant way to say that the homeless need help to help themselves.
You can’t assume your readers understand your assignment, Dunkin, so any reference to being told to read “both articles” is meaningless to them. That said, you’ve already expressed this idea twice, that well-meaning groups have not yet fully processed their solution. This can be cut.
So where are we now?
With our more economical sentences, we can now organize the ideas to provide information to readers as needed.
And finally, we eliminate the repetitions.
We should meet a few times to work on simplifying your sentences and organizing the steps of your reasoning, Dunkin. But whether you get the help from me directly, or establish a strong relationship with a peer tutor at the Writing Center, you should begin the work immediately and stay at it. 10 weeks of regular practice could greatly improve your fluency.
Your reactions, please. I too appreciate feedback.
Failed to reply.
a.) No amount of money will solve the problems of the homeless, even if they’re given homes. Many groups have an idea to help get the homeless off the streets, but cannot prevent it from happening again. b.) Even though groups are able to see and realize the passion people have to help, they do not fully understand the solution. This work takes more than building a few homes to help the homeless people, which is only the first step to rebuild. c.) These people are affected with mental illnesses, life-threatening diseases, and most commonly, traumatic brain injury. d.) Without the help of others, they cannot help themselves.
I appreciate the structure of your response, Dunkin. I didn’t expect anybody to “letter” the component sentences, but I like it.
What do you say here, Dunkin? Do you own this version now? Does it seem like the right approach, or are you humoring me? There’s no wrong answer except a lie. If you see the value of this version, will you be able to incorporate its technique into your own writing? If it seems like someone else’s voice and makes you uncomfortable, will it help you pay more attention to your own?
Your reactions, please. I too appreciate feedback.
Failed to respond.
I have made a few adjustments to this paper, if it will make a difference in my grade.
I’ve noted your changes, Dunkin, which sometimes help your sentences but don’t improve the paragraphs. I wish we had spent some time in sessions working on simple ways to briefly and clearly communicate straightforward ideas. You could have improved more this semester.
Let’s take your P4 as an example:
You haven’t told us how the money will be spent, so we can’t judge if it seems wasteful.
You haven’t named any organizations, and the focus has been on US homelessness, not worldwide.
This would be good, but you miss a chance to provide a shred of evidence.
A single statistic would be so much more effective than your naked claim.
Until now, readers didn’t know you were describing anything like permanent supportive housing, which frankly does sound very expensive.
This is a complete repetition of your first sentence.
In the above, we use the details of the source material instead of generalizing. Our own conclusions are clear, and the reader will easily follow the logic of getting people back on their feet, but instead of simply saying so, we share what we found in the source material to help the reader draw the same conclusions.