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.

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.

Techno-gap

A lot of the homeless folks I work with—especially those who have been homeless for a long time, are older, or come from extreme poverty—cannot navigate the web in a way that they need to.  Everything is web-driven now; apartment searching, job hunting, and applying for basic assistance -- all require rudimentary websurfing abilities, yet it seems so many clients I meet do not have a current email address.  I’ve made it a point to ask people about their email understanding now, and if they don’t have an email, we go over to a web-based email site, and we create one together(I would suggest this to ANY case manager or outreach worker).  This way, I can send email reminders about appointments, update people, and ask them how they are doing if I want to follow up.  Sure, they may need assistance to retrieve the emails I send them, but at least we have basic reliable communication set up.

When I think about the essential nature of technology in today’s world, I can’t help but be curious as to what service providers are doing to bridge this growing technological gap.  Basically, if you want to have people transition from street life, they need access to computers, and they need the skills to use them. Check out this story by Tech Vibes:

http://www.techvibes.com/blog/homelessness-20-how-technology-helps-the-homeless

 I definitely utilized my net skills to get off the street, but I was an exception to the rule, because I have always been on the geeky side. In the early nineties I used to go down to our local library and use what was called “Freenet.”  These were green-screened, text-based portals to the early web—it was GOPHER and USENET at that time.  I knew more about the Internet than a large part of the public then, and I capitalized on it:

 One day I was out on the corner with some nice clothes on and a stack of resumes in my hand, carrying a sign that said "Ask me for a resume."  A fellow came up and asked  if I knew about the Internet.  I said yes, and he asked if I wanted to help his company get online.  I agreed, and began to work as a contractor for a new company called “Carmanah Technologies." I went to their computers and set up Eudora mail, introduced them to USENET, and showed them how to link themselves with the fledgling network of engineers, scientists, and business people who were working on the same problems they were.  Readers that are from around here will laugh because that company went on to become a wildly successful publicly traded corporation:

http://cnrgponline.weebly.com/1/post/2011/05/carmanah-awarded-18-million-cad-contract-to-outfit-ontario-elementary-schools-with-solar-pv-systems.html

  I worked for them for about a month, and the president at the time asked me “so, are you going to school or anything?”  I said I wasn’t(of course, now I wish I had said yes, lol). 

But I digress.  The point is, my technological savvy has allowed me to far exceed the expected success for somebody coming from the background I came from, and the people that currently suffer in extreme poverty are no different.  Many homeless people are untapped sources of ideas, inspirations, and new perspectives.  When this culture (that is, mainstream North American culture) comes to realize this potential, we will ALL be a lot further ahead.  I have often said that the thinkers, the poets, and the dreamers of today have been pushed to the margins through crisis circumstances. 

Not only have homeless people been intellectually discarded, they are having a harder time getting basic needs met. Many are so far behind that it will take a year to get back on the techno-bandwagon.  Computers were essential tools 20 years ago, they are life and death now, and if service providers want to help, they need to realize this growing need.  All shelters need to be WIFI, and supportive housing units should come with a built in PC, not a TV as I so often see.  If clients want to use their PC to watch movies, they can do that, but let them also have a window to the world.  Even if the only thing a client ever does is talk to their family on a social network site, at least they are addressing their loneliness, which is one of the biggest hurdles in transitional recovery.  It’s time that the service providers step up and employ the tools that are out there: see technological development as an essential service for homeless clients.  Check out my new wellness wheel, incorporating technological development as an essential area of personal growth:

 

Like it? Don't forget to share the link and sprinkle retweets where needed!

Specific Help

I am still working to get people off the street, and I have been recently blessed with a position that allows me to help more directly. For the last year, I have been a type of outreach worker/case manager for homeless and addicted people. I have taken people to detox, supervised visits with clients' children, taken people to the gym to work out, visited landlords, assisted with applications, and whatever else. It's a very effective method because my help can be custom-tailored to each client. Every person I work with has different specific needs, and the systematic approach will not work very well for those who are "slipping through the cracks." Only when you take a client to fill out a rental application do you realize that the person is illiterate, or terrified of elevators, or something else. There is no quick and easy fix to homelessness, because each homeless person is a complex riddle that can only be unravelled through patient trustbuilding and loads of one-on-one time.

There are still some general themes and similar problems that many street people share, such as a history of trauma, or addiction. How each person copes or does not cope with these issues, however, can only be discovered through understanding the whole person on an individual level.

I am happier in this job than I have ever been, despite the difficulty. I am impressed that society is finally starting to understand the human component to addressing homelessness. This is not a problem that can be medicated away, or ignored. We are starting to learn that simply connecting with those who are lost is a solution in itself.

Now if we could just get funding for trauma counselling... hmmm....

Staff Consistancy

When you work with people in crisis, they ask for everything at once, and get upset in the blink of an eye if you don't provide it. These days in Victoria, it's hard not to upset at least a few street folks a day, because the place I work at (the needle exchange) has limited resources. Sometime we have food, and sometimes we don't. Sometimes we have blankets, and sometimes we don't.

And people don't believe you when you say that there is nothing to eat because no donations came in today. They think that you have some secret stash of food in the back office that you are not sharing because you are too lazy to go and get it. Alas, the negative effect of lazy or otherwise incompetent workers in this field. I have worked beside people who will lie to homeless people to avoid having to go into the back room to pull out a warm jacket, or will lie simply because they don't know how to say no.

There are also many workers who don't know how to get resources, or are overwhelmed--who simply cannot process all the requests. I have tried to be the person who goes "the extra mile" with clients, and I haven't always lived up to my own standards.

I won't be too hard on other workers here, because we all have our moments of weakness, but it sure is frustrating to deal with people who have been lied to and don't trust you simply because you're on the opposite side of the counter. It would be nice if all social workers were equal in their approach; if we could somehow "clone" the perfect social worker.

There is the other side as well: there are workers who will do so much for the clients that all other workers seem to pale in comparison. This is the person who gives cash or rides to people, who has more access to resources, and gives them freely, sometimes breaking the rules to do so. I have found myself being this person at times, but I have learned through experience that this behaviour creates a good cop/bad cop scenario, and so I have moderated my approach to be more in line with the general ideas of the team.

The answer to all of this inconsistancy is of course effective communication (hmmm... it seems that the answer for a lot of things is communication). I have worked in about 10 different agencies that deal with homelessness and addiction, and I notice that the more successful ones (i.e. the ones that see the best client relationships) are the agencies that communicate often, and communicate effectively.

Antimisinformationism

What is happening out there on the street? Do those of us who sit on various commitees and work in social agencies actually know what is happening out there with the homeless and addicted? I have sat in focus groups where one person said something, and that one statement somehow became an accepted fact at the committee level. One guy at a focus group says "We are tired of people talking to us," and the report for the focus group says "They are tired of people talking to them." The committee then makes a motion to "talk to people less," and the misinformation continues. The newspaper then reports that the committee says people should be talked to less, and the local politicians, wanting to have an "ear to the ground" then use the misinformation to create "non-talking" policies. And this says nothing about the contorting of the message that happens as it gets passed through different people. I'm convinced that very few people in this country have an idea of what is happening in the sub cultures that surround them.

Yet we, in our ignorance, are still forced to take actions on a regular basis. Such is life: we never know what the future may hold, but we are forced to act as though we do. To combat this difficult situation, our society has come to rely on the scientific method to give us a "reasonable" view of reality. If enough academic reports point in a certain direction, we can make enough assumptions to proceed. For the homeless, we apply social science, a smattering of sociology, social work, psychology, cultural geography, anthropology and economics. Ethical guidelines are developed, and legions of volunteers and academics rush out to get the scoop on street life.

Science has a difficult time with humans, however. For example, how do you prove what percentage of homeless people suffer from some form of mental illness? You could try and get a sample population and survey them, but the crisis situation that most are currently in will cause certain traits which may appear to be mental illness. Furthermore, how do you get this sample? Do you invite homeless people to volunteer (which will only gather certain types of people) or do you force people to participate (and if so, how?).

Perhaps the whole idea of "studying the homeless" should be discarded in favour of a more humane approach. I suggest we give what is needed while gathering what information we can in the process. For example, a reasonable homeless count can be done by tallying all of the people who use social helping agencies in a given area (so long as the list of agencies is very wide ranging and complete). Accurate records of client situations can be recorded by staff of foodbanks, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters. There is currently no national database or method for doing this, but I think it is time to initiate one. And when I say a national information database, I don't mean that we should bombard the homeless with technical questions, I simply mean we can ask them a few open-ended questions occasionally, and the staff person asking can interpret and record the results anonymously. For example, most people who come into emergency shelters tell their story to the staff member who does their intake. The staff can, after finishing the intake, visit an online database and fill out a basic form.
This data would accumulate, and eventually would give a somewhat accurate picture of what is happening.

Nevertheless, any attempt to get a glimpse into a sub-culture will produce a limited result, and we should keep this in mind. For this reason any study or data collection carried out with homeless people be done in conjunction with the handing out of tangible resources like food, shelter, etc. We cannot ensure an accurate reflection of reality, but at least we can make sure our time, and the time of clients, is not completely wasted.