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...

Looks like the BC Liberals are trying to create a new law which will allow police to force homeless people into shelters during bad weather events:

http://www.canada.com/news/Homeless+forced+street/2020166/story.html

It's obvious that this law is in response to a death that happened last year, when a mentally ill woman died from lighting a fire in a makeshift shelter.

It's tragic, the things that happen to people on the street. When someone needlessly dies, one can't help but wonder if there is another way. Certainly those of us who work with the homeless at times wish we could force people into better situations. I sometimes joke with my addicted clients that I'm going to have them randomly kidnapped and taken to a treatment center in the boonies if they don't smarten up. Often, they laugh back "Go ahead, do it!" and part of me knows that they half-mean it.

The reality is, we can't solve these issues with legislation because the problems of addiction, homelessness, and mental illness (and the mixture thereof) are impossibly complicated. I will say it again as I have said many times in this blog: systematic solutions are likely to systematically oppress this population, or at least a large chunk of them. Some people have warned that homeless people will now be hiding during extreme weather so they won't be "arrested" and taken to a shelter. Because they will be hiding, more of them will die of exposure, which defeats and confounds the original intent of the law.

Logistically, this law is a nightmare. Cops will be trying to be social workers, and social workers will be trying to be cops, and the trust between shelter workers and homeless will be strained, if not destroyed. It is also a very pricey option. Want to save money? Try giving a $5 gift certificate to each homeless person who comes into shelters on a cold night-- it's a lot cheaper than using two police officers, a very expensive police car, and other community resources like the ambulance you are gonna need when George takes a swing at the cop who is arresting him for nothing.

Want to save lives and help people who seem lost? Build relationships with them, and address the real issue. Give people universal access to therapy, not seroquel, and you will see the death rate drop. Fund outreach workers, and organizations who care, and you will see the turnaround. Don't throw a desperate law at the situation, it will only add to the problem. Here is a list of better things to spend money on:

- New residential addiction treatment centers with spaces for concurrent clients

- More Shelter Beds

- More outreach workers in the province

- Targeted supportive housing for a range of issues (i.e. supportive housing arrangements for people with personality disorders)

- Funded therapy for people who have been sexually, mentally, and physically abused (Psychological therapy, not volunteer-based "emotional support")

- More school counsellors

- Training for people who currently work with homeless (Such as Motivational Interviewing skills, etc)

The list goes on. This proposed law is well-intentioned, but it lacks on-the-ground understanding, and the money could be better spent dealing with the real issues behind homelessness. In any case, police already have the option to detain someone who is self-harming, they simply do not enforce it in every case because of scare resources. I guess the positive outcome of this latest news is that it will remind people of the impact of extreme weather on the homeless.

Filming Homeless

I guess a few street people attacked a camera man while he was filming them getting busted by the police the other day. Recently, our little town has been discussing homelessness and downtown drug use like crazy, but this new development should turn up the volume a notch. I can just see the letters to the editor that will trickle in over the next week or so, which will no doubt complain about the "culture of privilage" amongst drug users and homeless. Such violent acts, though provoked, can become symbolic of what's going on out there. Unfortunately, symbols are also gross over-generalizations, and the public just doesn't have the time to sift through the data to find out whether or not street people are violent by nature.

They are not naturally violent, in case you are wondering. Even the most hard core cocaine addict on a bad run is highly unlikely to attack. In fact, the most violent drug is alcohol, not crack, cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth, and alcohol is not used exclusively by homeless folks.

The attack does highlight the sensitive issue of filming or taking pictures of homeless people. We are a culture of documentation-- if there is an issue, we want to record it, film it, preserve it, and have at least one reality TV show about it. That gets really tricky with street people because the culture of the street says "no questions, no pictures, and certainly no bloody films about my life please." It makes sense doesn't it? These are people at the lowest point in their life. They don't want these images to be burned into their consciousness, or anybody else's consciousness. Cameras have a way of freezing people forever, and if I was going to be frozen in time, I would certainly not want to be remembered as a homeless drug user. When people are at their worst, the camera is a weapon of mass destruction.

Now the camera man might have been a bit surprised when the homeless people approached him demanding the tape. His culture tells him that the "truth" must be told, and he believes he is helping people by documenting their struggles. Perhaps the story was going to be about how difficult street life is, or a glimpse into police behaviour with the homeless. He may not see exactly what message he is sending these folks by filming them without asking. While most of us in Canadian society would be indifferent or even excited by the idea of being on the six o' clock news, these folks were not.

Cultural values are clashing between street and non-street people all the time, and it seems as though the gap is getting wider. So why is it happening, and what can we do to reduce the conflict?

These things happen because we humans are not educated about each other. If the street folks knew that the reporter had their interests in mind, or at least that his intentions were not malignant they may have been fine with the shots. If the reporter had any idea that the people he shot would be so offended, he might have reconsidered the filming. The camera man does have more access to educational materials, and more experience in dealing with humans in front of his camera, so one would expect his sensitivity. On the other hand, everybody including street people knows that violence is a horrible option which solves nothing and creates problems for everybody on both sides, so I see fault in both parties here.

I am going to make another gross generalization here, but I think it will help: street people need to be informed about who can be trusted. I don't think the press is particularily damaging to the homeless for example (another generalization) and as such, each news story that is done should be understood for what it is. Too often, reporters are seen as part of "the system," and are not trusted. Consequently, the true story of homelessness is not reaching the mainstream population with the full force that it could be. Politicians, social workers, businessmen, and other professionals all have tools for dealing with the media, and homeless people need those tools just as much, or perhaps more. Each reporter comes with a unique challenge, and street people need to know about their rights and the impact of their dealings with the media.

I will add that the press needs to be informed about street culture, which is perhaps not taken serious as a culture because of its internal diversity. Because people are homeless for so many different reasons, it is hard to quantify cultural norms of street people much less learn about them. Still, there are some basic lessons to be learned, such as how to use a camera without getting punched. I think explaining the purpose of the shoot, and clearly spelling out what happens with the film might help, for example.

Essentially, I believe conflict like this can be avoided with a bit of understanding on both sides. I hope that this incident has not tarnished anyone's view of the homeless, because like airplane passengers, there are always a few that do not handle the stress of life very well.