Below is the entire text which was sent to Multnomah County decision makers about the homeless. It will be released in sections over the next month on this blog.
Not a single city in the United States* has solved their most
difficult social problem: homelessness. And
this despite federal and local committees and many solutions proposed and
tried. In most cities, homelessness has
not been significantly reduced, and we have greater homelessness than we have
had before, despite our best efforts to relieve or hide the problem.
*Except perhaps Salt Lake City, but we are still waiting for
a final tally
I.
What is the Homeless Problem?
Before we understand why homelessness is still an issue, we must
understand why homelessness is a problem, and why most cities see it as a
problem.
A. A Mundane Emergency Crisis
A few years ago, I was at a meeting about
emergency crisis preparedness and I spoke to a Red Cross worker, who had been
trying to prepare different communities for the different regions. He didn’t know who I was (and I still can’t
remember his name), but I asked him, “What is the number one emergency crisis
that could hit Multnomah County?” His
response was, “The emergency crisis that Multnomah County faces every day is
homelessness… but I don’t think that’s what you are asking.” It wasn’t, but it should have been.
Recently, the mayor of Portland and Los
Angeles declared homelessness an “emergency crisis”, but we have lived with this
crisis for such a long time, we don’t have the drive to get ourselves worked up
for it.
If an emergency, such as an earthquake or
hurricane hit our county and left four thousand people homeless, it would make
headlines across the nation. Yet the
four thousand people who are homeless make no headlines at all. But we should recognize that homelessness has
all the hallmarks of an emergency crisis, without a dramatic event.
Those who experience homeless are a third to a fourth more likely to die young.
Those who experience chronic homelessness cost the public between 30 and 50
thousand dollars per homeless person per year.
(
US Interagency Council on Homelessness--
http://usich.gov/population/chronic)
B. A Social War
Dr. Susan Fiske, a leading sociologist, in
a major study dealt with public emotional response to different social
groups. She generalized these responses
to be “Envy” (e.g. for those who are wealthy or professionals), “Pity” (e.g.
for the obviously handicapped) “Pride” (e.g. for housewives) and “Disgust”
(e.g. for undocumented immigrants). She
developed a chart indicating the position of certain groups relative to each
other. She explained in a lecture at
UCLA that she wasn’t able to place the homeless, as a social group, on the
chart, because the American response to the homeless was so overwhelmingly in
the “disgust” category, that the group would have skewed the rest of the
chart. She said that the common
perception of homelessness is that they are a “pile of garbage”—less than human
and personally offensive to be close to.
(
Envy Up, Scorn Down, by Susan
Fiske;
Varieties of DE-Humanization,
lecture given to UCLA by Susan Fiske,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--dDx0q6so
).
According to the study by Dr. Fiske, the American
public have these preconceptions of the homeless:
-Homeless people are not interacted with by the mass of the population
-They do not have a relatable mind
-They are considered less competent than other groups
-They are contemptable
-They are disgusting, as if they have a communicable
disease.
-They are the equivalent of a “pile of garbage”
-One homeless person is worth less than five “normal” people
-The homeless are being dehumanized by the average American
This public perception is easily seen. A majority of comments on Anna Griffin’s
articles on homelessness have to do with how disgusting the homeless are. There is an assumption of criminal action by
the homeless, some call them “sociopaths”, while others are just wondering how
to get them out of their neighborhood. A
common thread is a lack of any perception that the homeless are fellow citizens
of our community. Rather, it is the
assumption that they shouldn’t be in public spaces. Many feel that their best location is in
jail, although the majority of criminal activity that is actually seen is
leaving piles of trash. There is a higher
level of complaints about the homeless to the police than other groups, even
when criminal activity is taken into account. (The Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland-homeless/
)
What Dr. Fiske shows, however, is that our
reasons for finding the homeless disgusting is secondary to their social
placement. The foundational reaction is
emotional, and we come up with reasons after the fact. This is why the reasons
change to such a degree, but the basic response remains the same—they must be
gotten rid of.
If our initial emotional response to the
homeless is disgust, then the primary social response is that the homeless is
the stranger, those “not one of us.”
This leads to fear, most often irrational fear, and then an assumption
of criminal behavior. Then the police
are called with complaints because of the homeless, and they feel that they
have to do something, even though they do not have any criminal act they can
act upon.
Eventually the public outcry becomes so
much that the homeless are moved from one location to another, which is how a city
responds to “piles of garbage.”
C. Public Poverty
Much of public policy about the homeless
deals with the fact that the homeless is the “public face” of poverty in the
city, and the more it is seen, the more the reputation of the city or
neighborhood is damaged. This relates to
the “broken window” study, which states that if there is structural damage of a
small nature, then it draws ever increasing structural breakdown. It cannot be said, however, that because
homelessness exists in public that therefore homelessness must increase, or
that there must be slum around the homeless.
The main issue has to do with reputation,
which is why homeless sweeps and enforcement of legislation on the books often
occur just before public events.
Homeless legislation has more to do with forcing the homeless to hide
themselves, rather than to be in the public eye. The less effective the homeless are at
hiding, the more legislation and sweeps there will be.
Businesses are, of course, concerned about
poverty being at their doorstep, for if their storefront looks like a slum, or
it has individuals whom others are afraid of near their door, then they lose
customers. Neighborhoods are also
concerned, because they don’t want to be known as the “slum” of a metropolitan
area.
For all these reasons, homelessness is,
more often than not, a battle against poverty out in the open, and the attempt
to hide it from public sight.
II.
False
Premises toward the Homeless Problem
In order for us to understand what public policy might actually help improve
cities with a large homeless population, then we need to understand what
assumptions public policy makers might have about the homeless which work
against public interest.
A. The Homeless are Criminals
Many police officers (certainly
not all), talk as if the homeless are a “criminal class” and they are just
waiting for them to slip up and show their true colors. This comes from three areas of police
experience: 1. That the homeless have a look of guilt when they approach (often
not knowing that the face expression of “fear” is the same as “guilt”); 2. That
neighbors complain about the homeless more than other groups of people (Often
the calls have to do with something the homeless are not involved in); 3. The
homeless are criminals when they are illegally sleeping outside, which gives
the police license to treat them as criminals.
The homeless feel that the police are their main problem, but that isn’t
true. The police are simply the public
face of judgment that the homeless most often see.
In a sense, almost all of the
homeless are criminals because they are sleeping in illegal locations. But that is criminalization of a social
group, which has been recently declared “unconstitutional” by the Department of
Justice. A large number (but not majority)
of the homeless are addicts to drugs or alcohol, but the majority of them are
using substances to deal with the stress of living on the street. A study in
Baltimore indicated that fewer homeless were violent criminal offenders than
other social groups. If the homeless are criminals, it is a social crime, for
being a part of the wrong social group.
B. Causes of Homelessness
It is assumed that the majority of
homeless become so because of addiction issues or mental illness. First, that
assumes that the majority of the homeless are the chronic homeless (the most
obvious homeless population), instead of the majority homeless—families who are
experiencing economic hardship and will be housed again in just a few
months.
Recent data has shown that only a minority
of the homeless end up on the street due to addiction issues (14 percent) or
mental illness. The main causes of
homelessness would be: loss of job, or
being kicked out of one’s apartment or house.
There is greater indication that obvious mental illness and addiction is
widespread among the chronic homeless as a result of the extreme stresses of
living on the street.
C. The homeless and transients
The word “transient” is often used
as synonymous with “homeless”, calling to mind “travelling hobos” of yore. However, the recent Point in Time Count of
Multnomah County shows that the majority of homeless stay in the same city,
even the same part of the city, where they became homeless. There are some homeless who travel around,
but that is not the typical homeless population. Rather, the homeless tend to be conservative
about their living area, only moving when they are forced to, and rarely moving
out of the area where they used to have a residence, or where they grew up. The typical homeless person is transient,
only if they are forced to.
D. Centrality of homelessness
Policy makers tend to focus on
where the homeless were, not on where they are.
Solutions or centers for the homeless in Multnomah County are often
located in downtown Portland. However,
the majority of the homeless are in inner SE Portland, and the homeless
population is growing more on the Eastside than anywhere else. And the majority of homeless in North
Portland and in East County are honestly afraid to stay downtown for any length
of time, so they disqualify themselves from using the services there. The Human Solutions answer is better—go to
where the homeless are going, and meet their needs there.
E. Homeless and the job market
It is assumed that many of the
homeless are not looking for a job, and that they are lazy. It is true that some homeless are lazy, just
like some housed are lazy. However, a
large population of the homeless already have a job. Almost all the homeless have spent time
looking for work, but gave up after failing for months or years. When you do not have an address, a regular
shower, a phone, an alarm clock or an up-to-date work history, then most
employers assume that a homeless person is not a good risk as an employee.
F. Silver bullet
Much of homelessness policy has
revolved around finding a single solution to homelessness. However, the solution to homelessness must be
as complex as homeless people themselves.
A single solution always leaves many homeless people out of the public
equation. Giving the homeless apartments
doesn’t meet the need of those who have claustrophobia, or PTSD for being
around groups of people (although it does give them a place to securely store
their belongings). Tiny houses is a more
expensive solution that doesn’t work for the homeless that gather large
quantities of items in order to provide security in their lives. Job training works for those ready to leap
into a job, which is not the majority of chronic homeless. Criminalizing homeless activity is not only
unconstitutional, but it doesn’t give the homeless any incentive to solve their
own issues. Any solution must be a
multifaceted solution, there is no one answer.
G. Lifestyle aims
Many public policy makers assume
that all of the homeless want or need an apartment, which is the current fad
among homeless policy makers. Wet
apartments* is a solution for some, but it seems to not actually reduce
homelessness, at least in Multnomah County, and it creates a mini-slum around
the housing. To speak to most homeless
as to what they want, their solutions are twofold: to have a place where they
can sleep without being harassed, and to have a secure place where they can
leave their belongings. Although these
solutions are temporary, they are far less complicated and far less expensive
than what public policy makers want to give.
This is partly because the policy makers have more than one goal—helping
the homeless isn’t the only issue—but it is also because they assume that the
homeless want or need much more than they do.
*Housing for the addicted without needing
them to be clean or sober.
H. Scarce resources
Especially in a county that has
4000+ homeless, it is easy to assume that the cities and county have limited
resources to help all of these folks.
That choices have to be made between who the policies can help and who
they can’t. However, part of the problem
is that public solutions are often so expensive that they can’t be given to
everyone. But solutions that may seem
“half way” are actually better solutions, much cheaper and more broadly
accessible to more homeless.
I.
Management
of the homeless
It is assumed that the homeless
must be managed by social workers or policy makers. That the only solutions for the homeless is
if the homeless have a “parent” to see them through. However, it has been shown that the homeless
have their own leadership, whom they trust more than government employees, and
that this leadership has the organizational knowhow to create solutions for
their own community. These solutions are
often not acceptable to the broader city, but that is usually because policy
makers are not working with homeless leaders, but working in opposition to the
desires of the homeless.
This assumption comes from the emotional
idea that the homeless are incompetent, while there is no evidence that this is
true.
III.
Why
Is a Solution Out of Our Grasp?
A. Effective Community Development
Throughout the world, communities,
expatriate organizations and nations have been working at community development
of their poorest communities. Over the
years, a certain set of principles have been established which have proven to
be effective in overcoming poverty in many contexts, both in the third world
and in developed nations.
Today, many American cities have
thousands of people living in third world poverty, including but not exclusive
to the homeless. Most of these people in
deep poverty belong to communities of the poor, they are not just
individuals. The American approach to
poverty treats poor people as individual or family units instead of larger
communities. As such, they do not take
in the most effective approaches of eradicating poverty, developed throughout
the world. Here are some of the
principles shown to work to eradicate poverty:
1. Although management from governing
authority is essential, the solutions and direct leadership of the programs
should be directed from the local poverty community. There must be a partnership between the
government and the poverty community.
2. Funding should not be a one-time investment in a community, but an ongoing
negotiated long term plan.
3. Success of any program must be determined by the success of goals, beginning
with small ones and developing, over time, larger ones. Evaluation of any
program should be continuous, both from within the program and from objective
outside evaluators.
4. Governance should provide training for partners to keep up successful
programs.
5. There should be continuous feedback between governance and community
partners, developing a more nuanced program to the needs of the community.
These principles have not been at
work among community development of the homeless. Generally, the American approach has been to
separate the homeless from their community, to create personal development
apart from peers. Success is declared
because of numbers of individuals moved through the program instead of the
development of a whole community. If a
community is developed as a whole, there is a much higher likelihood that
homelessness would be reduced or, over time, even eliminated.
(
Effective Community Development
Programmes:
http://www.effectiveservices.org/images/uploads/Evidence_Review_EffectiveCommunityDevelopment_2010.pdf
)
B. Psychology of Poverty
As mentioned above, there is an
assumption that poor people want to immediately be thrust into middle class
economic levels. However, it has been
shown that the poor are not able to consider long term, large economic goals,
unless they are handed to them. The
poor, generally, are able to consider short term humble goals, because their
brain reduces their expectations and self-esteem.
Most American cities’ approaches
to the homeless is to give a few individuals large steps of economic
improvement, while not having the resources to help the far majority of those
on the same economic level. This leaves
the poor the feeling that escaping poverty has nothing to do with their own
ability or with self-reliance, but a more “lottery” mentality of escaping their
life of crisis. If they are lucky
enough, if they get placed on the right list, then they will escape poverty
with little work on their part.
If there is a clear stair-step to
economic development with short but attainable goals, then the homeless would
have the confidence to establish their own goals and climb up that staircase at
their own time, according to their own confidence bolstered by peers who
climbed the same stairway. If it is not
available to everyone, or if economic development requires goals that are by
chance (such as shelter that is gender based) or are too large (find low-cost
housing and the government will pay for it), then it will be considered a
lottery available to those lucky to receive it.
IV.
Stages
Toward Solving the Problem
I am not offering a “silver
bullet” toward “ending homelessness”. I
am instead making suggestions toward a long-term solution about
homelessness. Many of these directions
cannot be completed in a year or two, but neither can solving homelessness.
The big answer to solving the
homeless problem is giving the homeless enough space to create their own
solutions. The homeless, for the most
part, are good citizens, wanting to live in peace and harmony with their
neighbors. However, their hands are tied
to determining solutions for themselves.
They are prevented by excessive chronic stress, harmful public policy
that criminalizes normal behavior, and the inability for their leaders to sit
at the table and offer their solutions.
The homeless can do much to improve their own situations, if they would
be given the opportunity to.
A. Changing Public Perception
The main obstacle to a successful
policy solution to homelessness is public and local government perception of
the homeless and solutions to the homeless.
As long as the public is fearful of the homeless and as long as leaders
continue to criminalize homelessness, then the homeless cannot find solutions
for themselves. But this will not change
as long as the public do not understand the causes of or solutions to
homelessness.
I would recommend a set of classes be offered about homelessness. There could be a class for those who make
public policy, a class for police officers, a class for social workers, a class
for church volunteers and a class for high schools. Presentations can be made at neighborhood association
meetings and to city councils, allowing people to ask questions about
homelessness and to offer real solutions.
One or two people hired by a city or county to teach at various
locations could make a difference in public perception in just two or three
years. The class could cover the life
of the homeless, causes of homelessness, community perception and local
neighborhood solutions. For police and
social workers, there might be a section about approaching the homeless and
offering solutions that would work.
Local television public service
announcements and social media campaigns would also be effective.
B. Stop Criminalization of Survival Activity
The criminalization of sleeping,
sitting, legal activity in public spaces during appropriate times, and
establishing campsites do not solve homelessness. Rather this decreases the options of those
who already have few options and increases the stress of our most chronically
stressed population. To tell people to
leave a public area when they have no legal or safe place to go is simply bad
public policy. To treat a homeless
person like a criminal for doing activity that the housed regularly do legally
in their living rooms, is to punish them for not having four walls around
them. To criminalize normal behavior is
to increase enmity between the homeless and the local government, which is the
opposite of working toward a solution.
Given that part of the medical
problem of homelessness is the extremely high stress levels and the PTSD of
being homeless, adding more stress to the homeless does not solve the problem,
but make it worse.
C. Homeless Inclusion and Leadership
Real solutions for the homeless
will not occur until real homeless people are involved in the solutions. It has been proven in working with
communities of poverty throughout the world that the best solutions are those
in which the community of poverty determines themselves and is deeply involved
in setting up. Public policy has been
given from the top down to the homeless.
If we are going to create lasting successful solutions, the homeless
must be deeply involved. Here are some
ideas toward that long term solution:
1. Survey homeless populations in different parts of the county, asking what
they think the short term and long term solutions to homelessness, and to their
personal situation might be. Kristine
Smock is the best person to do this task, having already successfully done a
number of PIT surveys.
2. Encourage local homeless
communities to have their own neighborhood associations. These associations would be official, would
vote for leaders and these leaders could officially represent the homeless to
their city, county and other neighborhood associations.
3. Homeless leaders should be
given a strong voice at the public policy meetings about the homeless. They would not just be quiet members, but
connected to their communities and have a full voice of what would and wouldn’t
work for their communities.
4. Homeless leaders should be made
continuing partners, evaluators and workers in solutions for homeless
communities.
D. Stairway of Economic Development
When we recognize that each
homeless individual has unique issues, we know that we must have a broad
approach with multiple solutions, reducing the stress of most of the homeless,
allowing them space so they can create their own solutions. For the price of one building, multiple sites
can be established throughout the county for different purposes, meeting the needs
of different kinds of homeless.
1.
Sleep
stations—Rather than expect shelters to take on the full burden of all the
homeless in an urban area, there should be areas where it is legal for the
homeless to sleep. The homeless should
be allowed to choose their own security people to keep the community safe
overnight, and they would be given a safe place to sleep during the day. Each area could be cleared at 8am every
morning.
2.
Lockers
for belongings—The homeless could be granted lockers to keep their
possessions secure, and so they don’t have to carry their bedding and tents
with them all day. The lockers should be
combination locks, able to be changed for new users.
3.
Camping:
A center for those who wish to camp. Permanent
structures such as hogans, yurts or teepees could be provided, as well as
electrical outlets, running water and an outdoor BBQ. Public bathrooms would also be provided. A
community center with showers, a gathering area and laundry facilities could be
provided. There would need to also be
some self-policing activity to prevent illegal activity, for if it becomes
necessary for the police to make too many arrests, the site would be shut down.
The violent or those who sell drugs or alcohol will be kicked out of the
facility to go to the sleep station.
4.
Forest
camping: A section deep in the forest should be provided for those who
suffer from mental disorders, where they fear being around other people. Training to surviving the winter in that
context could be offered.
5.
Parking
lot/rest areas: A place for free or inexpensive parking for a limited time
(up to six months?), for overnight parking only. This could be for those living in cars, RVs
or other vehicles that
cannot be parked on a public street. It can be run by homeless or low income
leadership. Each space can provide an
electrical outlet, running water and an outdoor BBQ. There could also be a community center
providing showers, a TV/meeting room, and basic survival supplies.
6.
Tent
Cities—More homeless-organized tent cities should be established, on
private or public land. If tiny houses
could be provided for a permanent structure, that would work well. It would
need to be self-sustained, apart from the land.
7.
Job
training center—Provide training and employment opportunities for all who
are homeless, including the opportunity of granting business licenses, and
insurance for street entrepreneurs.
8.
Shelters—Women’s
shelters and couple’s shelters should be provided.
9.
Apartment
offers—JOIN should still be obtaining apartments for the homeless, but they
should focus on those who are able to obtain work and function as their own
payees.
These locations and offers should be
created without permission of neighborhood associations, or enforcement by
normative building codes. Homelessness
is an emergency crisis, thus needing emergency solutions. In as much as the code can be followed, it
should be. However, acknowledgement of
community concern should be noted and compromise with the neighborhood
associations should be accommodated, as long as the locations aren’t moved to
another neighborhood. Also, each
neighborhood should be given training about homelessness and how to deal with
the homeless.
E.
Low
education Social Workers
There is a deep need for one on one counselling and social work for almost all
the homeless, which overwhelms the current crop of social workers. The city could provide classes to be
low-educated social workers, able to walk a person through the economic
development plan of the city, and helping an individual find where they fit in
the plan. If the training is offered for
free, volunteers could take on some of this work.
F. Local Resourcing
Financing always a problem,
especially when it comes to hiring staff.
However, it is possible to increase staff through volunteers. The local governments can call upon churches,
colleges, community service organizations and the homeless to volunteer at new
sites, to help clean up and to do maintenance.
There are many who want to help the homeless, and unused private land
might be offered for this purpose. Requests
upon the public might be made to help the local governments provide assistance
to the needy.
