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!

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...

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!

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.

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.