Is it Bigotry?

We've all experienced it.  You are posting something on social media about the disenfranchised, those in poverty, indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour, and the "bigot" comes along, telling you that your ideas are daft and radical. 

At a first glance, they look like a typical hate-filled racist, sexist, or homophobe, but as you look closer you see evidence that the person does not actually believe what they are saying. They are simply endorsing the oligarchy, and discriminatory policies are seen as "necessary evils." This is the person who says things like "you can't help those Aboriginal folks, they have to help themselves," or "women have the same chance anybody has to make a good living."

They are the "fiscal conservatives," and it seems more difficult than ever to separate the hate from the fiscal prudence. 

I've heard many people say that we've made no progress on race issues, and while that seems true, I could have sworn we were getting somewhere until the neo-con alt-right folks started to show up. 

Now it seems like half the people are still fighting to include everybody, and the other half seems to hate everybody, but for different reasons.  The fiscal conservative wants to "drill baby drill" not because he hates the planet.  The neo-con wants to prevent inner city people of colour from accessing education because she thinks it's not financially possible, not because she hates diversity.

It occurs to me that if there are two types of bigotry, there should be two types of anti-bigotry.

Just some quick thoughts, have a great day!

The Homeless Singularity

I haven't posted for some time, but homelessness remains as the largest social issue to rent space in my brain, so I thought I would offload a few more things today.

In the last few years, we have seen an explosion of homelessness in every city in North America.  Many communities have declared states of emergency, and are doing big sweeps of homeless encampments. While this is partially an economic issue, as homelessness has been in the past, this new wave of people hitting our streets carries a new, and more sinister complexity.

Homelessness has always been complex.  I used to work in a shelter, and trying to balance between the needs of people who were struggling with mental health issues, and those trying to get out of the prison system was challenging.  People would get schizophrenic people into street drugs, and the more aggressive dealers would prey upon the most vulnerable, leaving shelter workers with few options to keep the peace and support people.  Often, my co-workers said we needed two shelters to deal with the issue propery. Yet things just kept getting more complex, as we tried to support First Nations people, LGBT folks, and those with developmental issues such as Autism.

In lock-step with the micro-complexities of shelter life, we seem to have a new complexity and conflict of needs in our wider economy.  Property values have increased to such a level in many places that people simply cant afford rent.  Furthermore, the increased property values lead to market speculation on houses that would have been rented at one time.  Landlords have become eager to sell, leading to many evictions, and more chaos.

Since rentals more scarce, landlords have become more selective about who they rent to, so we have increased credit checks, paperwork, and high-pressure vetting of tenants.

And to top it off, increased property value leads to gentrified areas, squeezing those in poverty into smaller geographic areas.  The problem with homelessness in a gentrified city is that it doesn't fit-- anywhere.  Every square inch of every sidewalk in large cities is spoken for, and is the livelihood of some business-owner or homeowner.  There is simply nowhere to go.

I call this the "Homeless Singularity," and it seems quite apparent that homelessness cant exist in the future-- we simply don't have the space for it.  Homelessness is so costly now, with estimates of $20,000 - $50,000 per homeless person per year in policing, clean up, court fees, shelter, healthcare, etc.  Supportive housing has become increasingly attractive, and new partnerships between unlikely allies, such as the business community, academia, government, and faith groups, are being formed to address the costs.

I think this singularity will end well, but only through a lot of flexible tap dancing.  Many cities have opened up their parks to deal with the transition, but I think in the far future, we will look back and see ourselves as barbarians for letting good people die on the sidewalk un-noticed.

.

I am one of the authors of this book, and we will be doing a tweet chat tomorrow at 1pm Eastern Time.  Join us on twitter #hhchat.

Affordable Housing will NOT Solve Homelessness

A lot of people are talking about affordable housing as a means to end homelessness, and while it will certainly improve the chances of people on the street, it will barely make a dent for many of the homeless-- here's why:

When I was a case planner and a housing advocate, I worked with hundreds of people to try and find housing.  Some were fortunate, and we managed to get them into supportive housing, or negotiate with landlords to allow a tenancy.

Most of the landlords who accepted my clients, however, were slumlords, and they had little respect for their tenants.  The slumlords wanted to keep their buildings full, so they allowed tenants to stay if I endorsed them, and if I promised to mitigate any conflicts.  Often, my client would have to be completely honest, revealing health issues, criminal records, or bad credit or renting history.  This personal information can all be obtained today anyway.  Take for example this site, which allows a search by a person's name, revealing how many times they have appeared in criminal court, and information about the charges being dealt with.  It's a horrific amount of information for a homeless person to reveal, but there are 6 landlords I can think of off the top of my head who will run your name through this site before they rent to you.

So my clients had to extend themselves beyond what a normal renter does, and be up front about any shady history they may have had.  This also impacted their tenancy, because if a person was accepted under these shaky terms, and if there was any "trouble", (bringing bottles and cans home from binning, lots of visitors, the smell of marijuana, etc) the landlord would call me and ask me to remove them. I usually tried to mitigate the trouble, but it was very difficult when the tenants were already viewed in such a bad light.

These are just some of the challenges faced by the homeless.  If there are 400 chronically homeless people, and you build 400 bachelor units that cost $500, you would simply make life easier for students and seniors, because they will look a lot better on the tenancy application.  Homeless people will stay homeless if they can't pass a tenancy check, which in my city, always includes the submission of your social insurance number for credit checks.  Oh, you are free to not give them your SIN number, but then they just say "we decided to go with another tenant."

So market housing is off the table for people with poor credit history, and not surprisingly, people who live in poverty often have a compromised credit history.  People in extreme poverty can also have addiction issues as they try to cope with their circumstances, and criminal records (because of course judges like to make "no drinking" orders as part of probation).

But, you might say, we can just build supportive housing, right?  This is the well-intentioned but false belief that supportive housing is somehow unconditionally approved.  It is not, at least not in my city.  We have a "Centralized Access to Supportive Housing"  portal (the "CASH" program, ironically) which governs ALL of the supportive housing in town, and they have very stringent criteria.  First, clients are expected to reveal all criminal histories, including charges, time served and upcoming court dates, past evictions, mental health issues (including treatment and prognosis), they need to have a secured, verified income, AND they need to have me (or another advocate) endorsing the application.  It is much, much harder to secure non-profit or supportive housing in my city than it is to find market housing.  Quite often, I would submit an application to CASH with my client for due diligence, but most got housed through wheeling and dealing with slumlords.  If my client was lucky enough to pass the CASH criteria, and secure supportive housing, the battle was still not over, because if there were any problems, they would be evicted for "the safety of the other tenants," and the next CASH application they submitted would have a clear mention of this eviction...

Welcome to reality, I'm glad you could join me.

What can I tell you at this point?  What do we need to do to save people who are in grave danger on the streets?  I'd like to remind you of how overwhelmingly successful the "Housing First" strategy is(click here if you don't know of it), the idea that you simply give keys to a person on the street, and then support them in their tenancy, rather than screening people. Why is this program so successful?  I will tell you why I think it is.  Housing First is successful because it is unconditional.  If you scrutinize people, some will not pass the screening, and those people will become chronically homeless.  No matter what criteria you use, you will have to exclude some people in a system of scrutiny.

So here is my solution:

Housing First
Education First
Employment First
Health Care First, etc etc

I hope this list makes sense in this context. I am not saying that any of these components should have priority-- though housing is perhaps the most important--  I am saying that we need to lower the barriers, screening, and scrutiny of people who have experienced homelessness.  I was one of the most successful housing advocates on the various teams I was employed on for one very large reason: I never said no. I accepted each and every client as a potentially fabulous tenant, no matter what state they were in, or what they had done.  I trusted them. The enemy is not the lack of affordable housing, it is the lack of trust between the "haves" and the "have nots."

LINK to Radio Interview

Media Fear Mongering about the Homeless(again)

Yet another media piece (link here) that describes a violent perpetrator as a "Homeless Attacker."  The actual story seems to be about an untreated mentally ill man who was violent with an actor.

Its not a surprise that the story comes from Fox News, but ALL news stories seem to make this glaring mistake.  It is absolutely intentional, there is no way you can convince me that those very intelligent writers are not adding "homeless" to get higher ratings.

They could just as easily say "bearded man attacks actress," because the violence is not caused by his homelessness, at least not in the way the story portrays.  By using the words "homeless attacker," a writer is implying that the person has attacked someone because of their homelessness, which is not the case.  This person's homelessness is caused by mental illness, but he could have just as easily been an educated, employed, and even trusted community member who had a reality break.  In fact, if you look at similar attacks, it is almost always somebody who is housed.

This is a mentally ill person, and thank goodness the actor (Pauley Perette) said "we need more housing and mental health treatment" because it is so much easier to demonize the homeless as deserving of their fate when you have such fear mongering.  Perette must have been terrified, but at least she didn't come out of the experience with further stigmatizing statements.  Bravo for her! 

I think this kind of language used by news outlets causes stigma, because people are likely to become afraid of homeless people, and the knee-jerk reaction is to say that we need more jails, police, and punishment, instead of addressing mental health in a way which is compassionate thoughtful, and effective.

So let's listen to what Perette said and get busy.  The streets are no place for mentally ill folks, or families, or domestic abuse victims, or people with disabilities.  The streets are no place for anybody.

This mental map of community resources for the homeless lends a new perspective...

Many years ago, I created a database of community resources, made in Microsoft Access.  It was a simple set of menus, and the idea behind it was speed... I was an outreach worker, and I wanted to find contact info in a couple of clicks.  It was before Google became the first research destination.  At some point, I started longing for a resource database that was as good as Google maps.  See, only with google maps can you be looking at the planet, and by simply rolling the mouse wheel and shifting a bit, you can sift through every street on the globe and find your house.  It is the fastest filter for information I have ever used.

Armed with this inspiration, I stumbled on a mind map program that offered the promise of "zooming in" with the mouse wheel to filter out data.  I started to use it, and found a number of benefits:

1) This resource database is easy to use.  I put some instructions at the top of the map, and anybody could use it with a few clicks

2) It allows you to look at the whole picture of resources, but also allows you to narrow down your parameters in a second.

3) As you navigate it, you learn about resources.  For example, when navigating "mental health supports" users will see there is a large list of peer support groups, which may encourage them to pursue that option. 

4) I could develop links to exactly the right website, and save the researcher the time it takes to sift through a government or non profit website.  For example, if you look for birth certificate applications, the mind map takes you directly to the pdf that you can fill out with a tablet and send to a printer.

5) It was set up as a network, so I could add collaborators and work with teams to keep the information up to date, one of the largest challenges to a resource guide.

6) It was readily available for anybody with a smart phone, tablet, PC, Mac, etc because it is hosted online, and the company has supported apps.

The themes from the main menu were chosen by considering the various challenges that lead to homelessness, which are many.  It is set up this way to help outreach workers get to the right area based on the circumstances their clients are facing.  I have been updating and linking the data for more than 4 years now, and it is much larger, but it is still easy to get to where you want in seconds.

I realized with time though, that it looks a bit harder to use than it is.  People perhaps think of a huge complicated multicoloured flowchart and they shudder.  It really is easy to use though, I swear.

I am going to develop a tutorial to help new users I think, because once you have this tool in your toolbox, you become infinitely more valuable to your clients.  I would like to some day make this an open source tool, in which service providers can update their own information.

For now, its worth going over to have a look.  Let me know your thought, and share as needed.  I think any community could benefit from this type of tool, and mind maps can be created quite quickly and easily.  Follow the link, and think "Google Maps" as you are using it.

Victoria BC Homeless Resources Mind Map 

Instructions:

Municipalities Know the Homeless by Name, says Tsemberis

"Only at the city level do we know who is homeless by name"

I found this quote from Sam Tsemberis in a story by Judith Lavoie about homelessness in my city.  Sam Tsemberis, of course, is the fellow behind the "Housing First" movement, and his simple but shockingly successful model for addressing homelessness has been making headlines around the continent these days.

I have been thinking about responsibility lately, perhaps because we just got through the Federal Election, and Victoria is currently considering a sizable investment in housing for the homeless.

Tsemberis is quoted as saying that municipalities "know the homeless by name," and I agree.  Cities also know the context that a homeless person lives within-- the specific local challenges and circumstances faced.  For example, the needs of the homeless in Victoria are shaped by the wet climate on the West Coast, so tarps, umbrellas, and good foot care programs are needed here.  Furthermore, any supportive housing units built have to budget for solid weatherproofing.  Victoria understands these local needs better than the Province, or the Federal Government.

The homeless are sensitive to, and better helped by small, personable and local community resources. From my early life experiences of homelessness, exclusion, and disenfranchisement, I learned how destructive it is to cut off a person coldly-- I felt simply ignored for the most part, a lost drop of water in an ocean of people in crisis.  Even today, 25 years off the street, I still feel a slight panic when I deal with a call center or an international webpage for things, because I feel like one of millions.  Those of us with lived experience do not tolerate being invisible well.

Beyond being a more local and warmer approach, a municipal initiative is also a just approach when you consider who benefits from ending homelessness.  Take my own story, for example.  I was homeless in many different cities in many provinces in Canada between 1985 and 1990.  I landed in Victoria and got off the street, recovered, and then spent 12 years helping the homeless in Victoria.  Along the way I have spent money, helped build the local economy, and where I could, I helped my city understand local homeless needs.

Victoria has benefited greatly for supporting my efforts, and I see my city, and the local community resources here as the primary investors in my life.  I have definitely been helped by federal dollars, and the issue is very complex because local resources are funded in part by federal and provincial money, but in general, I have received the most help from real people I have known in my community.

I would not want to use this argument to say that we don't need money from other sources, but I very much appreciate that my city is currently taking the lead on this issue.  Local homelessness initiatives are more effective, human-centered, and economically sensible.

Why People with Lived Experience Overshare

I overshare.  I admit it, I can be in a professional meeting about a specific, non-political task, and yet I see no problem with telling people my real background to give context to my position.  I have noticed this quality in others with lived experience as well- we are not afraid to tell our story.

While there are pros and cons to self-disclosure of any sort, the person who has experienced homelessness, trauma, addiction, mental health issues, or similar issues within their family has I believe a specific reason for being willing to disclose:


We survive by ending the silence.


This means that we survive by admitting that we were abused, and making peace with our abusers.  We survive by drawing attention to the hell we go through and have gone through, rather than perishing in noble silence.  Being reserved about your personal matters is a privilege afforded to those who are simply accepted for who they are- I don't have such a privilege.  I am not the same as all the other reindeer, I have this stupid glaring red nose, and I am forced to explain why I do the things I do all the time.


We survive by ending the silence.


We are also forced to reveal personal information in order to receive help, thanks to the merit-based systems we currently have in place.  When we want to leave our dysfunctional families and try to improve our lot, we are bombarded with application forms, and prodding questions.  Some of us have to testify, confront abusers, and blow whistles to make changes.  Some of us are forced to take on oppressive structures, and fight battles we don't intend, because we cannot improve our lives while we remain invisible.

Those who have been through hell also come with a gift for sharing, and we like others to share as well.  The street culture is decidedly collectivist, and the spirit of sharing with each other is a community strength, not a deficit.

So please, stop thinking that I'm "oversharing."  Stop rolling your eyes and thinking it's unprofessional, or cringing when you hear me wax personal.  I am gaining strength, not losing it, by relating what I have experienced.  It is a gift for you, it is a gift for me.

Sorry I called my nose stupid.

Enough about me.

The Homeless are Running Out of Places to Exist

I just read an article about how the homeless are now banned from Reagan International Airport.  The homeless are quite simply running out of places to be, it seems.  As property values increase, as the network of security guards, cameras, and cruel infrastructure designs (Such as spikes or bars where people might sleep) becomes more readily available, the homeless are getting locked out.  I imagine that homelessness will simply be illegal in the future, and anybody without an address found on private or public property will be arrested and taken to the last acceptable place for the homeless: Jail.

The author of the article says that we shoo people out of such places because it makes us feel uncomfortable to walk past people with dirty blankets, but I think it goes a little deeper.  I have often thought that the reason we feel uncomfortable lies in the fact that we see ourselves in them.

Every time somebody asks me for help, though I am usually quite poor, I am pressured to give, because I feel like I am failing to be human if I do not.  As the level of crisis escalates, the stakes go up.  I can walk by somebody who needs a couple quarters for a cup of coffee, but what about a guy who has no shoes?  How about a physically disabled woman who needs food?  A child? The stakes go up as our systems of exclusion reach near perfection, and we find ourselves abandoning hard-working families who simply cannot afford housing, even with two jobs.As the pressure increases, those with privilege are finding it harder to say no, and finding it harder to look at "them" without stopping to help.  There is a fear that our families will get caught up in the crisis, that it will tip the carefully-balanced lifestyle that we worked so hard to achieve.  As I've said in previous posts, we are taught from a young age to stay away from ill people, from "dangerous" friends, who may pollute our lives with dysfunction and drama.  This fear of others keeps us from reaching out to help them, and perpetuates the cycle of life-wreckage. 

So we tell ourselves that there are some people we don't want to be associated with, or that there are "some people you just can't help" and that's that.  It would be a simple solution if there was still an "Australia" to "ship your undesirables to". In today's hyper-real estate world, there is really no place for destitute people to go.  The presence of people in crisis negatively affects property value simply because of the stigma of association, and most parts of the world are owned.  Furthermore, the "public" places, such as libraries, parks, and sidewalks, are full of disenfranchised people, because they are the only places that legally allow extremely poor people.  This causes communities to rise up and declare that the parks and community spaces are not meant for crisis, which then prompts new bylaws banning feeding the homeless in parks, etc.  Exclusion leads to exclusion.  We still think that there is some place down the road where the poor old guy can rest his feet, but we don't realize that the place down the road ALSO has security guards and cameras, and other ways to exclude the homeless.  And thanks to cheaper and more powerful technologies, we get better at exclusion every day.

At a certain point, it will become obvious that this is not a working system, and we will be forced to find a place for people to go.  It is a battle being fought in the courts, and I'm sure we will see many changes down the road, because the courts will always rule in favour of humans having the right to exist.  In the end, we will simply give them houses and a basic living wage, because it is cheaper and easier than trying to exclude them.  

The Way Life Works

Homelessness is Only One Piece of my Puzzle

I am one of the authors of this book, in which I begin to address the challenge of homelessness as I see it.  It's astounding to look back at this now and see the difference from the time I wrote it(a few years ago), until now.  Thankfully, I still believe most of what I said :)

Link:

http://homelesshub.ca/onepieceofmypuzzle

Is Your City TRULY using Housing First?

How do you know whether or not your city is using the "Housing First" approach to ending homelessness?

Pam "You're a Jerk!"

Sam: "You know Pam, it's more helpful for me if you avoid 'You' statements and try to use 'I feel' statements.  It's a better communication model."

Pam "I feel you're a Jerk!"

And so goes the false "I feel" statement.  A clever communicator will spot the hidden "you" in the second quote, but on the surface, it appears to follow the model.

So it is with the Housing First Model: a community can create a Housing First program, but if the housing context is merit-based, the homeless person still has to jump through hoops to get to that program.

The advantage of the Housing First approach used by Tsemberis is that the homeless do not have to meet criteria to be housed.  The communities that have used his model simply acknowledge that it costs more to service homelessness than it does to offer supportive housing. They basically hand the keys over and ask what supports are needed to help this newly-housed person live in harmony.  I see it as a courageous move, to step up to the plate and make the commitment to help someone who needs it.

Yet screening forms permeate this network of non-profits and housing agencies, who all state they are interested in Housing First. In fact, many non-profits in my city are currently claiming "housing first" status, while endorsing the "Centralized Access to Supportive Housing" (CASH) program, which screens every single applicant for nearly every single supportive housing unit in the city. This scrutiny involves health care diagnosis details, criminal record checks, and requires the applicant to have "proper supports in place" before being offered a suite.  The applications are then taken to a panel of housing providers, who will be the future landlords of the applicant.  The whole process is the opposite of Housing First as described by Tsemberis.

I will not single out any non-profit, because it seems all I ever do as an advocate is help people get through screening and eligibility requirements.  Financial matters, legal matters, housing matters, shelter, detox, treatment-- everybody has their little form to fill out.

If a community hopes to employ a Housing First model, it needs to apply the model to as many related services as possible.  Housing First simply says, give the keys to the person on the street, and then support them as they try to stabilize their life.  It almost seems too easy, but I beg you to look at the results of Tsemberis' efforts around the continent, they are nothing short of amazing.

Communities need to think about how things look from the street.  People may say "those people could get housing/employment/treatment if they wanted it" but are they aware if the actual steps involved? As a case manager, I spent sometimes 9 months on one persons' file trying to get through the application process for addictions treatment! Now considering the fact that some supportive housing has the requirement of completing addiction treatment PRIOR to applying, (and once you are on the list for housing, it might be a year before you get a place) you can see that the road to housing can seem daunting indeed.

A Different Political Approach to Ending Homelessness

I think the Internet has affected my communication style, and I am very glad I started to notice it. It seems so hyper-political out there, and the context lends itself to competition, because everybody wants to "show" the "other side." It especially feels that way during an election, and my tendency is follow suit, blasting people and trying to put them in their place. While this can give me a thrill as the blood rushes to my ever-expanding head, at the end of the day, homelessness will only be solved when ending it becomes a way of life for all Canadians, of all political leanings.

I haven't been as brutal online as some are, but I could definitely reach out more to the least-informed folks about the homeless experience, educating them rather than scolding. There is a very big difference between being cold-hearted and being uninformed, and most of those who call the homeless "lazy" or say "they choose that lifestyle" are the latter. The cure for ignorance is teaching, sharing, and educating, so why does it seem that we lean toward punishment, blaming, and shaming in the political realm?

In psychology, I learned that punishment is a very ineffective way to influence behaviour, very short-lived and thin. It is much better to positively reinforce, to point out what the person has done right, while informing them of their options.  As a case planner, that is what I did for people-- I helped them become aware of other options available, while getting behind their successes.  I also connected them to others who were knowledgeable in certain areas.  I need to treat all people with the same courtesy, to be a full human, so I intend to change what I do a little.

I want to find those who I think are strongly affecting the stigma against the homeless, and I want to sit down with them.  I want to understand where they are coming from, and make sure they feel heard.  I want to find the things in them that make them shine, and I want to win their support for ending homelessness by showing them the numbers, and the stories.

Now, if only I could find a few people like that...

Inclusion vs Bogus Inclusion

In case you were interested in including others:

Real Inclusion	Bogus Inclusion
No expected results or agenda	Results are expected in specific, described ways
Participant-driven and organized	Organized and promoted by the "included"
Focus is as broad and diverse as the participants	Focus is narrow, goal-oriented, often dictated by a "facilitator"
Seen as an essential starting point for a project	Tacked on near the end of a project, as a "luxury" if the budget allows for it.
Waits for voluntary involvement	Pushed through by people who want speedy outcomes
Embraces all emotions of participants	Discourages anger, frustration, or emotions seen as negative or unproductive
Experience sharing - feeds participants	Production enhancing - feeds the system
All people welcomed and invited to attend	Cherry-picked participants, "negative" people are told not to come, logistical screening out (limited spaces for example)
Goal is to include	Goal is to provide evidence of inclusion
Outcome is not expected, but welcomed	Outcomes are known before "Inclusion" begins (i.e. report that is planned and drafted before meetings even begin)
Participants ask questions about the world around them	Participants are asked questions about the world around them
Participants are accepted as valid upon entry	Participants must demonstrate validity
Participants are allowed to view and/or modify outcomes	Outcomes and reports are seen as the property of the "Includers."
Equality of voice	Facilitators or leaders have a favoured voice
Conversation is deep and meaningful	Conversation is light and task-oriented, complex conversation is discouraged
"I'll sit with you"	"You sit, I'll record what it's like for you to sit there"
Participants are responsible for what they say, good or bad	Participants are told they are "courageous," or judged as negative, or put on a false pedestal

Pet Friendly Supportive Housing

Considering the people we serve in the "homelessness industry," it is shocking that ANY supportive housing project gets the green light while remaining "no pets."  How does this happen? I think it may be a lack of awareness on the part of program developers, or the complications of insurance, animal control, and the intersection of these issues. 

I want to spell it out clearly, once and for all.  If your organization is in the process of building supportive housing, and you havent figured out how to accommodate the dogs, cats, birds, and rats, you'd better start again.  The last thing street peeps need is another resource designed for somebody else. Here are some things to keep in mind when talking about housing people with pets:

1) They will die before they give up on their loved ones.  Why? Because despite the fact that teachers, judges, parents, and even outreach workers give up on people in crisis, most people who have been given up on have sworn to themselves that they will not do that. To anybody. Ever.

2) Asking them to give up their pets is the opposite of a client-centered approach.  Homeless people love their pets for a reason, we need to get behind them on that.

3) Anti-pet policies lack a trauma-informed approach.  You simply need to see how wonderful support animals are when it comes to trauma- they are incredibly therapeutic.

4) One of the biggest challenges to transitioning from the street is dealing with loneliness.  I dont think this point needs elaboration

5) Pets build community.  I am not a dog owner, but if I borrow one and go for a walk, I talk to more people, and more people talk to me.  Housing providers who want community engagement should consider pets as a catalyst (dog walking clubs, etc)

6) Pets take responsibility, which builds capacity.  When I was new in recovery, and complaining about my loneliness to a wise mentor, he said this: "Derek, why dont you get a goldfish? If its still alive after a year, try a dog... if the dog is still alive and well after another year, THEN you can try a relationship"   :)

I know some people will say "what about people with allergies, huh?"  While it is true that some people have such severe allergies that even being in the same apartment building as a cat will involve a trip to the hospital, this argument is as weak as saying "white people experience racism too!"  Yes there are people who cannot tolerate animals, but they are a small group, and much easier to accommodate.  For example, you could have ONE small "no pets" building in each town for these rare cases.

Insurance issues? Who doesnt have them? Pets are the LEAST of your liability concerns as a housing provider.  As long as your resident follows local bylaw requirements(and you support them to do so) you will be fine.

Housing providers: who are you building these units for? Look at the homeless population, and ask them.  Talk to your local animal control people, and start to understand this crucial issue.  No city can EVER hope to end homelessness without factoring in the intense love for animals many street people have.  We do this TOGETHER, doggies and all...

Poor People are Built for Generosity

A new short film shows that sometimes, people who have less give more.  (link)The idea that people who experience extreme poverty are more generous is not new.  To me, its part of the culture of poverty.  I grew up in poverty, and my mother was always clear that we should help those less fortunate, and never think of our lives as more valuable than the next.
I would say that out of the hundreds of homeless I have worked with over the years, at least 60% of them said they want to help others once they recover, by working in the field, talking in schools, etc.

It's also not a stretch to think that those who save their pennies carefully are less likely to reach out to the poor.  I watched a video of Paul McCartney walking through New York, chatting with people, signing autographs, etc.  When a man who looked homeless approached him, and shook his hand, he seemed happy to see him.  But when the man pulled him in a little closer, asking him to help him with a personal crisis, Paul backed off, walking away saying "I cant help you with that, take care." Now we absolutely know that Paul has a ton of cash, but we also know him as a man who knows how to hold on to his wealth, as most wealthy people do. This scene is absolutely normal.  Rich people are rich for a reason.

Of course, we've now reached the end game of the wealth-generation experiment, as though we were in the last round of a giant monopoly game.  It hardly seems worth it to pass go and get the $200.00 when every property on the board has a little red motel on it, but we are going through the motions.

In this next chapter, I believe we will see the hope, optimism, and generosity of those with experience of poverty shine through.  The money managers served their purpose and brought stability to the world, but now that the wealth is so concentrated, most of the world is paralyzed, waiting for the billionaires to get bored enough to change things.

ADHD May be One of the Largest Causes of Homelessness

Undiagnosed ADHD may be one of the largest causes of homelessness.  This may seem like a stretch of logic to you, but lets consider ADHD and ADD for a second. NIMH says that ADHD has been shown to be a developmental condition in which the brain maturation is delayed (link).  The delay is most pronounced in brain regions involved in thinking, paying attention, and planning.

Essentially, Johnny doesn't do his homework.  He signs up for the course, amazes people in the classroom with his thoughtful and creative ideas, and becomes a class favourite, but he fails the course-- why? Because 60% of the course mark is based on weekly assignments, and he has missed 80% of the deadlines.  He has also been late or absent for more than 40% of the classes.That's because Johnny doesn't track time very well, and he always figures he has a bit more time.
Planning is a frontal lobe activity, and it is what some argue separates us from animals.  We see the deadline approach, and we prepare, using intellectual analysis of environmental factors to make a prediction about what will happen.  If we time it right, we do exactly what is expected at exactly the right time.
This mental ballet elludes the ADHD brain.  People with ADHD may say that they understand when the deadline is- you can look them in the eye and ask them if they understand what is expected of them, and they will assure you that they will be there.  When it comes time to rely on them, however, you may be disappointed with the result.

ADD is an invisible disability.  As a person struggling with this invisible demon, I frequently find myself in awful situations with no real good reason why.  I am articulate, thoughtful, and I care SO much about others, but success eludes me, because I dont seem to follow through when it matters.  If I talk about this with others, they simply say things like "do better," or "yeah, Im lazy too sometimes, but I learned to pull my socks up and get things done."  Its as though my disability doesn't exist... Im just lazy, or manipulative.

Today, everything is tracked. Every late payment you make for a bill goes into some database that will affect your ability to aquire resources down the road.  A poor attendance record is one of the worst things you can have on your profile, and it's possible that I am damning my ability to ever get a job again by publicly stating that I have struggled with attendance my entire life.

Yet I want us to talk about this, because I am having some success with my brain these days, but I am struck by how many homeless I have worked with who share my experiences.  In order to apply for welfare in my city, an applicant must first go online, and register.  Then they have to show up for a phone interview at the office, in which they will be given a list of documents they will have to supply to gain eligibility(a 60 day bank statement, income tax assessment, identification, etc).  They are given a second appointment, the social assistance worker reviews the material and books an "Intake interview."

Anybody with ADHD is probably laughing (or crying) as they read this, because they realize that us folks have a very slim chance of even having current ID and a current tax assessment, let alone being able to show up on time to three appointments in a row.  Most of us ADHD folks will put off gathering the required docs until the last day, thinking it will be easy.  Then we will stress ourselves out trying to get banks and tax centers to give us the info in too little time.  We will stay up the night before, trying to cover up our delayed response-- only to miss the first appointment because we slept in (got distracted by a phone call and forgot to set the alarm).

I have so many people on my caseload who play this scenario out over and over again.  They cant rent anywhere, because when the landlord checks references, the old landlords always mention how the rent was late, etc.  People with ADHD or ADD can be brilliant, but their attendance record stops them from gaining entrance to most school programs.

Have you ever seen an employment job description that did NOT include "careful attention to details?" I haven't.  We are all expected to plan, to show up, to "take our time and do it right."  It is like a fundamental pillar of our society, and on all of it, we ADHD people fall down.  Over the years, I have found myself hated for what Ive done (or not done).  People react with disgust, anger, frustration, and thus, as Dr Gabor Mate points out, the most frequent phrase used by people with ADHD is "Im sorry."

For many of us, homelessness is the only way to find peace from the relentless demands of systems and institutions.  Some of us end up in jail, because its actually a crime to not show up for court.  We will house a homeless person who is dependable, who shows up to group therapy on time, who is predictable in behaviour, but who can help the guy who "made his own bed?"  Most programs which help the homeless are merit-based, and ADD folks will never make the cut when so many others are competing for resources.

So how am I coping?  I have a pretty awesome career, am widely respected, and I show up when it seems to matter.  While my ADHD is fairly mild compared to some, I use a number of techniques to get by.  I surround myself with people who remind me where to be and when, I medicate occasionally (ADHD meds are usually stimulants that wake the brain up so I can focus at crucial times), and I talk openly about my condition with people I care about, so they know that when I show up late, its not personal, or out of a lack of concern.  When I set an appointment, I usually set up frequent email and text reminders leading up to the event, and I tell friends if I need their help to remember.  It actually takes me three times the effort to show up on time, but it can be done.

To help homeless people with ADHD, I have one strategy: I do it all for them.  I cannot count on them to be there, so I focus on getting them to sign consent forms so I can show up in their place if need be.  Oddly enough, I seldom drop balls with my homeless clients, though I drop balls in my own life like crazy.  As it turns out, outreach worker is a fabulous job for people like me, because the diversity and depth of the work works well with a creative mind. 

Ok world, decide: is the ability to plan, show up on time, and stay focused required to gain access to basic human resources like housing, food, and love?

The Wheat and the Chaff: Why "Housing Advocacy" Won't Exist in the Future.

The Wheat and the Chaff-- Why "Housing Advocacy" Won’t Exist in the Future.

February 23, 2015

By Derek Book

My job is less of a career, and more about mischief.  I am an advocate-- more specifically a Housing Advocate for homeless people.  My role has been slowly created through the advancement of systems that surround the social ills of our society.  We have created a school system, a criminal justice system, a health system, and an employment system -- most of which are nearly perfected.  People who harm others or themselves, make poor personal choices, or refuse to play by the rules are brought to justice, perhaps by being sent to the principal's office, sent to jail, or put on a blacklist which labels them as "drug seeking."  

Client tracking is effortless now, we have cameras covering nearly every square inch of every drop in centre, housing complex, and department store in every city in the developed world.  Databases have been developed, centralized, tweaked and enhanced through intensive computer processing and human resource development.  Chances are pretty good that one day in the future, if one of my clients applies for supportive housing, the intake coordinator will be able to find out how many times the person was sent to the principal's office.  

Yet we are not living in such a world yet.  We still have unswept corners: slumlords who allow tenants with “no questions asked,” probation officers who are asleep at the wheel, and new intake workers who can be tricked into taking a difficult client, despite the mandate of their program.  I live in these dirty corners, huddled there with my clients, looking for an exception, ANY exception to the rule.  

So homelessness has a different definition for me than for some of my co-workers and colleagues.  Academics try to divide the topic into broad categories such as “At Risk,” or “Chronically Homeless,” but to me, it’s more about social acceptability.  Some clients I work with have a low level of social acceptability, and some are in the grey zone-- perhaps they have a few criminal charges, but they are well-spoken, with some recovery behind them, or they have an ability to appear more professional than they are.  I usually take stock of what my client has to offer, and sell it to potential employers, landlords, and criminal judges.  If I can convince the resource that my client is not “one of the bad ones,”(Read: chaff) I have success-- my person gets housing, and is on their way to re-establishing social acceptability.  Some think advocacy is some glamorous job where you attain resources for people who really need them by persistently lobbying for people.  The reality is, it’s a sales job, no different than a door to door pitch with a product that may or may not do as it was intended.  I have a well-oiled landlord pitch that uses such terms as “In transition” to describe people who aren’t likely to be the best tenants ever.  

When I talk with landlords, the elephant in the room is the tenancy history of the person I am working with.  Quite often, not only were they evicted from the last few places they lived, but they did a lot of damage on the way out.  I have to try and keep the conversation positive, and talk about how hard the person is working, when I know personally that some would be lucky to even remember appointments, let alone keep them.   I am speaking of the most difficult cases when I say this, some people are so lost in crisis, there really isn’t much point in trying to move forward, but I must, because I am an advocate.

If a landlord takes my client, they do so at great risk, with little to mitigate any damages incurred.  I may tell the landlord that I will personally follow up if trouble arises, but the reality is, I may not be in this role in a year or two, so I cannot guarantee follow up.  Furthermore, as I house more and more people over the years (I’ve seen over 300 housed in my 12 years in this field) I find it impossible to follow up in any reasonable way.

If a landlord takes my client, they are not acting in a logical fashion.  If a landlord is a good manager, who is concerned for the safety of his or her building, he or she would shut me down in the lobby.  Sometimes I am bringing a tenant who not only lacks all the correct information (they often don’t even have basic ID), I am bringing a tenant who has a PROVEN poor track record with regard to tenancy in many cases.

If a landlord takes my client, they are acting against their own social lens.  Many managers use a “Wheat and Chaff” model to select tenants, and would suffer the consequences if they didn’t.  We constantly tell our kids not to hang out with the “wrong” kind of people, and thus our prejudice against people in crisis begins from childhood.  We are told to avoid people in poverty, because we don’t want to be associated in the wrong crowd.  We have this reaffirmed in “leadership school,” where we are given tools to get rid of the “dead weight” in our workplaces, schools, or communities.  

Yet I have been wildly successful in getting people housed.  So if landlords are taking the people I am advocating for, and getting burned at times, what does that mean in the long run? Well, I’ve seen the backlash unfold over the years: landlords become hardened, screening becomes more intense, and compassionate landlords are replaced by unsympathetic professionals who won’t share their email, cell phone number, or even hand an application to an outreach worker.  Working with outreach workers has become unprofitable, and most landlords in my town won’t even return my calls if they know the organization I work for.

Well, you may say, those “bad tenancy” people can always get into supportive housing, right?  No, they can’t.  There is never enough supportive housing, no matter how much we build.  In my city right now, we are short by over 1000 units (I am estimating- it could be much larger).  This means supportive housing staff must SELECT a tenant.  Keep in mind that these non-profits are funded by other entities that want to see positive outcomes-- the United Way will not fund an organization that is not able to evidence success with the funds allocated.  That means supportive housing complexes are forced into taking clients that will demonstrate “success.”  

So we have come full circle: the tenant with a bad rental history will still require somebody like me to get them in, regardless of whether or not the supportive housing service was built specifically for them.  As it turns out, dealing with supportive housing landlords is much, much more challenging for advocates-- these landlords know me well(most of them know me by name in this city), and they don’t believe me for a second when I say my client has been doing well… they have heard this before, a thousand times.  They understand that an advocate will ALWAYS say their client is ready for housing, because their role is to advocate.  I do my due dilligence and apply for supportive housing for as many of clients as I can, but I don’t waste much time with it, and sometimes, I tell my clients to apply on their own, because having my name on the file is likely to make things worse for them.

My housing focus is still on the unswept corners-- new building managers, slumlords, old-school 12-step “recovery houses,” and informal, sometimes legally-sketchy environments that aren’t likely to ask many questions.  Like a salesman with a less-than-perfect product, I look for those customers who haven’t tried my product yet.  

Inevitably, a person like me sees that the reason why they got into this work has been left behind in the desperate attempt to achieve success.  As an advocate, you start to cringe when the client shows up for an apartment viewing in dirty clothes, smelling a bit like booze and urine.  You want to tell the landlord that the person has been through hell in their life, but you can’t because you have to respect the privacy of the client.  Besides, nobody gives a damn anymore if I say my client was treated poorly-- the response is usually “Haven’t we all?”

So a lot of us advocates have stopped saying we are going to “get people housing,” and it’s something I will never say again, if I can help it.  I used to tell people I would do everything I can to get them in a place within a month, but now I just support their emotions and help them go through the reams of paperwork that society has set up for them.  We want to see them punished-- that’s what this is all about.  We have perfected the art of accountability, and we now hold these people permanently accountable for everything they have done wrong.  You can get a pardon for a crime, but not for a bad credit history, a bad tenancy, a tendency to be late or forget details, or a mental health breakdown-- these things will follow you forever if the researcher digging them up knows what they are doing. I personally won't play this "wheat and chaff" game, because I don't see any of us as having more value than another. I also believe that some people will succeed, some won't, but trying to predict that is like standing on the shore of the ocean trying to guess the height of the next wave. After 12 years of this, I know that everybody is equally worth it, and deserves a second chance-- Everyone. Every time. No matter what they did. Unfortunately, the system will eventually catch up with me, and I will be asked to start working with people who are likely to be successful-- I will be asked to select the wheat from the chaff. I will not play, and thus, I will be hanging up my hat shortly.

In conclusion, I will say that Housing Advocates have an uphill battle in front of them, which gets steeper every year.  I recently had a senior staff person say “Oh, I remember being an advocate, I was so frustrated all the time!” I don’t think she realized that advocacy is not difficult so much as nearly impossible in today’s world of seamless records management.  If you charted the difficulty of my role in today’s housing market, the line would be vertical, I’m sure.   I am not so much a salmon swimming upstream, I am a nearly dead fish somewhere near the end of spawning season, clawing my way up a trickling stream, knowing that I can’t do it much longer-- knowing that when I finally rest, the best I can hope for is a cheesy plaque saying “Thanks for all the hard work!”  Then I will suffer the same fate I tried to prevent the homeless from experiencing: floating downstream with all the dead fish.  At least I know the lady at the counter of the welfare office, maybe she will get me through faster...

Social Inclusion and the Homeless -- Not for Vegans!

Social Inclusion and the Homeless -- Not for Vegans!

Ah, the elusive task of social inclusion.  I have been plugging away at my new job, trying to bring the voice of people who have experienced homelessness to the table in the discussion about ending homelessness.  It's rough sometimes, the goal is not always clear.  I realized that I needed to define exactly what social inclusion is, so I came up with an acronym that may not sit well with vegans:


Social Inclusion needs to be MEATIER:

Meaningful: The people on the street have been through so much, they simply don't have the time for tokenism.  If they think you are wasting their time with yet another survey, they will just not show up.  This requires some careful listening, and a good deal of thought about what "meaningful" means.

Early: When you have built the social housing project, staffed it, and projected the budget for the next ten years, it's NOT a good idea to consult the homeless at this point.  Heck, its not even helpful to consult them midway through, because their voices will be drowned out in the sea of egos that usually surrounds projects.  Go to them FIRST, not as an afterthought.  This is directly tied to "Meaningful," because the sooner you get involved in a project, the more influence you have.

Accessible: Somebody once told me the first thing you need to do when faced with an oppressed person is to ask what they need.  I follow that rule the best I can, and make meeting areas handy, provide bus tickets, food at the meetings(in case it overlaps with community meals), and I try to contact people in a way that they can access, be it email, phone call, or face to face chat.  Make it easy for the homeless to interact, and they are happy to participate.  Accessible also means accommodating their conversation style-- do they prefer one-on-one, or group discussion?  Every person needs different things, my job is to customize inclusion to each individual.

Tangible: There's little point in having a great conversation with a homeless person, only to walk away with nothing on paper.  Taking minutes, notes, and listing out themes helps create a tangible outcome from interactions.  This is the other side of meaningful-if it is meaningful, write it down!

Innovative: When it comes to homelessness, we have been doing the same thing each year, hoping for better results, but it can sometimes feel like we are going in circles.  Maybe we are doing it wrong.  Maybe it's time to shake things up, to do something different.  Are there unlikely allies that may be helpful?  A new place to have a meeting?  A new way to have a meeting?  How about a group bike ride? Life is too short to repeat yourself until you die, stretch those creative muscles!

Energizing: If it's not feeding you, then you are starving.  If you start a project, but there are sighs around the room, if the project just won't pick itself up and move forward, you may have to stop and take a look.  Perhaps this is a good time to ask if the discussion is meaningful and tangible.

Reciprocal: This is a good test to see if what you are doing is really inclusive.  When you plug into something, it plugs into you.  If we want to involve street-experienced people in our community discussions, what are WE hoping to learn from THEM?  If the answer is nothing, then it's probably not real inclusion.  Real inclusion must co-exist with the idea that there is a mutual benefit to all parties, or it will fall flat.  So what are YOU hoping to learn from the homeless?