Elephant Shit

Some late night reflections on housing first, and systems...

A light bulb went off so brightly that it woke me out of a sound sleep tonight.  This is why "housing first" is going to be a waste of time in most applications:  because it's given lip-service without support.  I think (at best) it's proving a waste of time, and (at worst) a set up for failure.  Here's why:

Housing first has been shown to be effective in cases where chronically homeless people are housed in situations that accompany them with intensive case management and support.  Wonderful.  But that's not what is happening in many programs that are claiming to use the approach.  A program can call itself a "housing first" approach, but if it does not offer the tools or resources to provide the level of case management that has been shown to be effective in housing first, well, it's NOT.  If the program doesn't offer the longer-term support that is key to the effectiveness of the housing first approach, it won't work.  Many have shared their hands-on experience in programs for the homeless.....it is often after six months or longer that these programs see their highest levels of effectiveness.  

So....there are programs out there today that are being touted as solutions that will "solve"  the homeless problem in less than a year from now (give or take).  That's a set up for failure.  It will fail.  These programs are not designed to provide long term and intensive case management support.  

Our streets are strewn with people who have made choices that have gotten them there, and many of them continue to choose the streets despite help that is offered because they place (for whatever reason) greater value on things other than being housed.  That's not a value judgement, it's an observation.  

Will putting them in housing produce a newfound appreciation for being housed?  Will it motivate them to do ANYTHING it takes to STAY in that housing?  Not without someone holding their hand through that entire process.  That's housing first.  It's not, however, what we're offering them.

In terms of systems...we can all fly around at 30,000 feet and look around the city.  We can land in the airport and then take off again.  None of that really tells us what's going on on the ground.  Are we forgetting (did we ever know?) that we're part of a system?  We aren't just landing on another planet ready to solve that planet's homelessness problem.  We live here, we're part of the system that has created and continues to "empower" the problem.  Our service agencies are also systemsthemselves.  They are made up of people who are part of innumerable and overlapping systems...and each person is a complicated system unto herself...that includes and cannot be separated from the environment and her own psycho-social matrix.  

So if we KNOW that the elephant is in the middle of the room (to borrow a model from a fairly well-known system) why do we continue to feed it, groom it, tend to it, shovel its shit...but not acknowledge it?  Wouldn't acknowledgement then lead to better design?  Wouldn't acknowledgement lead to an improved diet for the elephant so that it will grow and thrive into the kind of elephant that we aspire to, as decided in community?

Complex Humans

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0208-banks-eddie-dotson-20140208,0,4597828.column

Really worth the read...

Yours, Initially....

So...what's the deal with all the initials and acronyms?  If you've ever spent any time in the NPW (non-profit world), you'll know--it's a B of A...a barrage of abbreviations.  Programs and providers and funders (PP&F's) all seem to have their own set of letters designed to confound the wordiest of smiths.

What's the point? (WTF?)

I can see how expedience might be part of the motivation in going the route of abbreviation.It's easier to say "VASH," for example, than to rattle off "Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing," especially if you have to say it 100 times a day.  "SSI" is a simpler recitation than "Supplemental Security Income" (say THAT ten times fast!).

But I think there's more to it.  And while I don't have any research to support this, I've a hunch it has something to do with ego.  SP's (service providers) like me (I'm an MSW!) like to think we have our own special lingo--code language that we seasoned professionals can rattle off while newbies stare ahead, blinking in stunned silence while the letters fly by at record pace.  It makes us feel important.

Which makes me stop to wonder, once again, what it's all for...or should I ask, "for whom?"

Appalling, Indeed

Dateline February 18, 2011
Reporting from Chicago, IL, USA

The Sheriff in Cook County, Illinois, is "appalled" at the way indigent burials are being handled by the cemetery that has been contracted to care for these remains.  "We collectively treat these people as if they are refuse.  we can't continue to do that."

Isn't it interesting that it's the treatment of the remains of these human beings that has garnered our attention today?  Why is it that we are "appalled" at how people are being buried on one hand but not completely outraged at why they were "indigent" to begin with?  Isn't it possible that their "indigence" is directly connected to their having become "remains?" 

How bad do things have to get before people notice and take action?

I'll tell you what's appalling.  What's appalling is a society that continues to marginalize PEOPLE, deprive them of support and services that would enable them to thrive (and thus benefit themselves and the whole of society) and then sweeps them into mass graves, referring to them not as "people who have died" but "indigent bodies."

Outrageous!

As if we needed any more proof that the privatization of functions that are essentially public functions is a bad idea, here's a piece from NPR about a really bad law passed for a really bad reason.

Profiting from the senseless incarceration of people is a gross injustice.  You can read the story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741&ft=1&f=1001

"An extraordinary apology"

The LA Times today reports on an apology made to a USDA worker who was fired for comments she made that were taken out of context and then sent flying on the internet. The worker, who happens to be African-American, was thus mistakenly shown to have used reverse discrimination against a person who happens to be White. In reality, the entire context of her speech (according to the article publicized by the NAACP) revealed the worker's sincere desire to help all poor people:

"'They could be black, white and Hispanic,' she said, adding that 'it made me realize then that I need to work to help poor people.'" (LA Times, July 22, 2010, A12).

The article reveals what some have been saying for a long time: that those in the power elite like to pit oppressed peoples against one-another: it keeps people from uniting against their oppressors. It's a handy tool that's been used by all kinds of despotic structures: dictatorships, religions and the like.

How wonderfully refreshing to see someone transcending initial prejudice and emerging in a place where she can truly work for justice for the oppressed, no matter who they are.

That smell!

This morning I was riding the Metro Blue Line down to Long Beach. About halfway down the tracks a man got on the train and took the seat in front of me. I wouldn't have even noticed, except for the smell that wafted my way. I'm normally one with a high tolerance for odors of all kinds, but this was really nasty. The guy was neatly dressed, but clearly hadn't had a bath in a while.

I struggled for a bit, thought about moving, and decided that I would stay right where I was without really knowing why.

Later, over lunch, I walked by an open dumpster in downtown Long Beach and smelled the same smell.

We treat people like garbage. We pick and choose our favorites, we care for those we love, and the rest--the nameless troubled masses--we leave for garbage. And after a while, it all starts to smell pretty bad.

In fact, it stinks.