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.

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.