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.

Consider the costs

With the lastest plan including a mega-memorial to Michael Jackson at Los Angeles' downtown Staples Center, one has to ask about the costs. Estimates are running in the millions for the added police and security that will be needed when tens of thousands of fans descend on the area next week. Who should bear the burden of cost?

While I find the whole Michael Jackson phenomenon interesting, and his personal story tragic, I really can't condone this kind of wasteful spending, particularly during a time when the city is strapped for cash and (once again!) the most vulnerable in society are being further marginalized. What does it say about us as a people, as a culture, that we will jump at the chance to underwrite the memorializing of a pop music figure and simultaneously consider cutting funding for programs that help people who don't have enough to eat and no place to sleep, whose education opportunities are substandard?

Why should the poor, once again, be forced to pay for the rich?

Sad, tragic, but....

The untimely death of Michael Jackson is a sad and tragic end to a storied life and career, and clearly is affecting many. It's heartbreaking.

But can we please keep this in perspective? I just heard a woman say that Michael Jackson was like "Ghandi" and a newscaster likening his death to that of Jack Kennedy.

Really? Ghandi, the great peacemaker? Kennedy, President of the United States, assassinated?

Talented, yes. Meaningful, yes. Someone who did many good things in his life, certainly. But are we seriously saying that our culture of celebrity somehow elevates a pop music star to the same plane as a Ghandi or a Kennedy?

Strewn across the water

The news services are reporting that hundreds of personal items belonging to the victims of the Air France disaster, strewn across the South Atlantic, have been recovered.

I can't help but picture it...eyeglasses, maybe, or a child's doll...a novel half-read or a wallet or the photo of an unmet grandchild? And I wonder, as I trudge through life, worrying about the stuff that I need to pack for my next trip up the freeway or across the continent, whether my life can be any different knowing that one day the little treasures that I can't seem to do without will be strewn and forgotten.

Our hearts go out to those left behind in the wake of such unexpected tragedy. How might we best remember them and work to make the world better for everyone?

People can change...

The view from here...

It's Tuesday morning, and I just looked out my kitchen window to see a couple of guys sitting in the parking lot next door...looks like they're smoking crack.

It's times like these I can understand why people have come to the conclusion that some people are beyond hope. But further reflection requires me to ask about my own addictions, about the way I live my own life, about the the things that I do (daily!) that are self-destructive. Just because no one has drawn a line around my behaviors and called them "illegal" doesn't mean they aren't abuses of self and others.

GM and Uncle Sam

Well, isn't THAT special! Uncle Sam has finally grown some huevos and laid down the law for GM and Chrysler: you take public money, you are accountable to public officials. Bye bye, Rick Wagoner! (Hmmm...wonder what color HIS parachute is...).

Isn't it interesting that all these capitalists are suddenly beating at the door of the GOVERNMENT to bail them out of the piles of CRAP their self-centered over-indulgences have created over the years? How long did they think world markets would tolerate their stupidity? They learned nothing from the 70's and 80's...now they have no right to cry when the big "guy" with the money bags actually wants a say in how they run things. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And please don't blame this on unions. Car companies in places with far more restrictions and responsibility to workers aren't in the mess that GM and Chrysler are in...this cannot be blamed on offering fair wages and benefits. It's the result of big business greed and stupidity.

And don't expect the government to make things much better. It's big business in the public sector too. But maybe, MAYBE, we're beginning to see a new level of accountability, and some hope for those who have, forever, been living at the whims of people with money and power. The only REAL freedom in the world has been experienced by the rich...and it's time, finally, for a change.

Joel Stein on charitable giving....

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein27-2009mar27,0,3207801.column

In his op/ed piece, Stein challenges the traditional idea of deductibility for charitable contributions...it's worth reading.

"Blowin' in the Wind:" Disaster in Malibu, California

An article in the Los Angeles Times this morning (Happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone!) highlights the terrible difficulties people are facing in today's rough and tumble economy. It seems that a beleaguered family in the slums of Malibu, California, is beset by the stench of Bob Dylan's portable toilet. It's so bad, they say, that they have trouble sleeping at night, and have installed large fans in their yard to try to blow the offending odor away. Alas, poor souls.

No, I am not making this up.

And to make matters worse, it turns out that Mr. Dylan (you remember him, don't you? That radical guy who sang about justice and all that?) has had relationship issues in the past. When he was building a guard shack on his property it didn't meet code for accessibility, and so he promised he wouldn't hire "any handicapped people" to work there.

That's right, while the world is in a tailspin and the most vulnerable and marginalized among us are being pushed even closer to the brink of disaster (or over the edge!), these filthy rich folk are bickering over fumes and promising not to hire people with disabilities? My heart is overflowing! Perhaps we should take a collection...

What the future holds

This morning I was driving on the LA Roller Coaster (also known as the Pasadena Freeway) and I got to thinking. As the road twisted and turned, I recalled that it holds the title of LA's first freeway, and was met with great eagerness when it opened at the dawn of the age of the automobile. Back then, folks were excited about the growing symbol of American prosperity: a car in every garage. Roads, and eventually freeways, would take over wherever streetcars had once been a major mode of transportation. For many it's hard to believe that the Los Angeles area was once home to one of the world's most comprehensive public transit systems...the famous Red Cars.

Now, of course, there are many who lament what was once hailed with exuberance. Those who sit in traffic on smog-choked freeways, driving to work or school so far from suburbia are realizing that something has gone wrong. This isn't a dream...it's a nightmare. And what we wouldn't give to have the old Red Cars back?

There's a lesson in all of this, of course, and it goes way beyond the lack of sustainability of the culture of the automobile, or nostalgia over a mode of transportation that has vanished. What are we doing, today, to plan for the future? How are these plans, even if well-intended, leading toward results that will be as untenable as we experience the results of yesterday's dreams today?

In some ways it would take a crystal ball to answer that question. But it's not completely outside of our power to think beyond our exuberance to the potential realities of tomorrow. And while we may not, ourselves, be living with the results of our good or ill planning, chances are someone we love will. And who among us wouldn't want them to look back with fondness on a generation that showed true vision for a positive future?

OK...a little premature...

You can't blame me for getting a little worked up over this whole Prop. 8 thing. It's enormously frustrating.

We live in a representative democracy, and far be it from me to suggest that the majority is not always right. But you'll have to excuse me, because I have roots in the German culture, and something tells me that there's a lesson to learn there...that maybe just because a majority of the population thinks something is right, doesn't mean it is.

I'm pretty sure that's why we have courts in this country...to keep things in check. That way, even if the majority DOES decide to take away the rights of a minority, there are level-headed folks who can say "Whoah! Let's think about this. Let's think about our founding principles and not be quick to trample on the rights of the 'few' just because there are 'many' who think it's a good idea."

But that is precisely what is happening in California...and all over the world, for that matter.

Couch it in whatever religious terms you like (we've separated religion from the state for a reason!), it simply IS what it IS. The State of California offers privileges to some people and not to others based on sexual orientation.

Hate is Legal in California....

Or whatever...as long as a simple majority of the people say it's OK, the constitution of the State of California can be altered to SPECIFICALLY limit the rights of minority populations.

Well...isn't THAT special?

You know what? The lives of real people are affected by this, and it's an outrage. Real people are tired of waiting for popular opinion to catch up or get with the program. Real people with real life issues facing them square on are tired of waiting for so-called "moral" people to come to their senses and realize that they are RUINING peoples' lives. Real poeple who live real lives are forced to remain second-class citizens with rights that are separate-but-equal (at best).

It's WRONG.

It's WRONG.

It's WRONG.

So...what's next? What course of action can real people take? How can they go on with their lives in a place where they are not allowed to do what the majority of the population is allowed to do?

Ken Starr want's to halt the recognition of same-sex marriages, basically invalidating 18,000 couples' real life experience...as if it never happened. There's a place in hell for that kind of hate.

This is a sad day for California.

This is a sad day for America.

This is a sad day for the world.

What the %$#^@&????

Oh, it sounds innocuous enough...cute even. Young McKay Hatch of lily-white South Pasadena, CA, crusading for a cuss-free LA county (and beyond). Isn't that nice!

Actually, no, it isn't nice...it's a really BAD idea.

First of all, limiting anyone's speech, or even suggesting its limitation, based on one's personal perspective of what is profane opens a very dangerous door. What you think is OK may be deemed pornographic to someone else. Do you REALLY want the LA County Board of Supervisors involved in the determination of what language it's OK to use?

Second, young McKay's perspective is clearly rooted in a religious perspective that is not reflective of any majority or tradition. The Bible speaks specifically about the misuse of the name of God to the end that some traditions won't even USE a name for God...but the Bible never predetermines what kind of language is "clean" or "dirty." "Oh Pickles" may just be offensive to cumcumber farmers is Peoria...but that doesn't mean McKay should be told not to say it.

It's all a sham perpetrated through youthful ignorance by people set on turning the world into a place that looks and sounds just like they do. Why are people so uncomfortable with variety? It's the saltiness that adds the flavor...or so I've heard. Sure, it's true that words matter...but so do the words that never get spoken because of overzealous censorship.

Greak, McKay...don't cuss. And tell others when you are offended by their language. But don't tell us what it's OK for us to say or not say. That's just un-American.

Look up!

It's so easy to become mired in negativity these days. Everywhere one turns there is disaster: economic, social, political. It would be easy to join in the collective sigh of "What's the point?" now heard 'round the world.

But there is another place to look: up. Now is the time for the optimistic at heart to take a lead and work to lift the spirits of the downtrodden, to offer hope to the hopeless, liberty to the captive--to proclaim the year of favor.

Because if not NOW, then when?