Open Carry Homeless Activism

What does “open carry” communicate?
To carry a gun is obtaining a position of power. It is not a bad thing in and of itself. If a person is carrying gun in the midst of a gun-carrying culture, then it means very little, like a hunter with a rack of guns in the back of his truck. But when few people are carrying guns out in the open, then it means something different. It is a power which the carrier demands respect (like a police officer or a security guard) or a person who is trying to communicate fear and distance (like a gangster). A gun in that culture (like Portland) is a threat, an agent of fear. 

This isn’t a problem if the “good guys” carry guns. When those we trust carry guns then we feel safe because we know that the people who are there to support us have power. But if the “bad guys” carry guns, then it becomes a threat, stirring fear into those who see the carriers as “bad guys.” Generally, those who carry guns see themselves as “good guys” so they carry guns to protect the “good” people from the “bad guys.” 

The problem of dividing the world into “good” and “bad” people is that humanity is weak. The “good” can do bad actions and the “bad” can sometimes stand for the good. And there is disagreements, because of the tendency to divide. These people, with these characteristics, are “bad” (Republicans, police, wealthy), and people with these characteristics are “good” (homeless, fellow activists, environmentalists). In reality, though, people aren’t so easy to divide. And when there is an emotionally divisive situation, there can easily be “good” or “bad” on both sides, just looking at different facts to support their position. And if everyone is willing to do violence, or threaten the other side, then everyone is only one hairsbreadth from being “bad”—i.e., killing the innocent.

The Emotionally Divisive Situation
Emotions run high when we talk about homelessness. This is due to the emotional assumptions made about the homeless. Dr. Susan Fiske, in her study on various social groups, determined that the homeless, far more than any other social group, fits the “disgust” category. This means, she said, that the typical American sees the homeless as “a pile of garbage.” 

So when the typical American sees a homeless person in their neighborhood, they have two typical emotional responses: disgust and fear. Disgust, because the homeless live such a different lifestyle than what the housed usually feels is acceptable, and fear because they don’t understand how a person can live that way and there are stories of drug use and criminal activity. These are assumptions that must be battled through education and through them meeting and knowing the homeless. That is a long path, but necessary.

In the meantime, we live in a society in which most Americans see the homeless as “bad guys”. They are the criminals who are invading their neighborhood, and until they have the opportunity to spend time with the homeless, this attitude will continue. Because humanity, for the most part, does not emote from rational actions, but rather we come up with reasons for our emotions after the assumptions have been made.

The homeless, meanwhile, are oppressed unfairly because these attitudes exist. Because they are seen as “piles of garbage” the government keeps moving them from place to place because this is what you do with garbage. Because of the emotional response of fear, there is the assumption that the homeless are criminals and so the police are called to deal with them. And all activity of the homeless—sleeping, sitting, panhandling—rather than being seen as actions of the poor, are seen as actions of criminals. Thus the homeless are arrested, abused and generally oppressed. Their possessions are taken because it is illegal for them to have them on public property.

This leads to a cold war between the homeless and those who enforce the fears of the typical American. The homeless are convinced that the police—the enforcers of the American fear—are evil. They also have mixed feelings about neighbors, many of whom call the police. The neighbors see the homeless as evil and needing to be jailed or moved. Because they fear to approach the homeless themselves, they use the police or security people to be buffers.

We have a situation in which the housed see the homeless as “bad guys” and the homeless see the police and some housed neighbors as “bad guys”.

The Result of “Open Carry” Activism
If activists supporting the homeless, or the homeless themselves, begin to openly display guns, then the threat becomes open and clear. The ones whom Americans most fear then have a real threat, and the cold war will turn into a hot war. We have seen this already. In 2010 Jack Collins was killed after attempting suicide because he was carrying a knife out of a bathroom, not hearing the police tell him to put the knife down. If the homeless carry threatening objects, they will die and the community will praise the ones who killed them.

The path of violence is first assumption, then anger, then threat, then violence. Open carry isn’t violence, it is threat. And in the hands of those whom the community fear, it will lead to violence and death.

If homeless activists carry guns, then both sides feel justified to use the weapons when there is a severe enough threat. We must realize that both sides already feel threatened. To bring weapons into this already tense situation is inviting a hot war with losses on both sides. This is not only a dangerous lack of concern about human life, but it is completely unnecessary.

The Solution: Community Support
On October 20 of this year, a protest in South Africa make up of black activists were protected by white activists surrounding them. Although the police came with every intent to break up the protest with violence, as they have done before, they did not touch the whites. The whites were of them, while they would have violently attacked the blacks.

Even so, if we want to protect our homeless friends, we do not want or need to have weapons. We need to show that “normal”, “acceptable” members of the community support our homeless friends and welcome them as a normal part of our communicate. This can be done through protests and clean up work parties (which have both community leaders and the homeless) and having community members stand and support the homeless who are threatened.

Paying back threats with threats won’t work. And they aren’t necessary. All we need are people, like those whom we already have, stand with our homeless friends and show that they are a welcome part of our community and we will not accept them being threatened.

Solutions to Homelessness: Local Resourcing

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. 

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. 

Solutions to Homelessness: Voluntary Social Workers

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. 

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.

6 Reasons ALL Activists Should be Talking about Homelessness

I have a number of friends who are activists for various causes.  And I love the causes.  We are in a water crisis when corporations sell water back to those in drought.  Black men are being attacked by U.S. society.  Indigenous peoples have always been oppressed and attacked.  We live in an age of information and openness, and the realities of racism and sexism in our society are finally being revealed and we are speaking out and taking action.

My plea today, however, that no matter how serious and important your key issues are, you should also be talking about homelessness, and standing with the homeless community.  Again, I’m not saying your issue isn’t essential.  It’s just that the homeless are the focus of abuse of today’s American society.

I’m going to keep this short, so let me just give you a few statistics.

1.       The homeless are seen as worse than any other social group

Sociologists have studied the reaction of different social groups to American minds, using an MRI.  They have determined that we have a “disgust” response in our brain to certain social groups, including welfare moms, undocumented immigrants and Arabs.  But the social group with the strongest and most pervasive negative automatic response is the homeless.   Dr. Susan Fiske says that the homeless are considered “inhuman garbage piles”. 

The homeless are constantly feared, distrusted and the cause of anger of the far majority of housed people. Cities criminalize the very existence of the homeless, disallowing them to sleep, receive food or finances, and they arrest them for having bedding.  This is due to the overwhelming response of the housed who, without cause, blame the homeless for the ills of their society.

2.       The homeless are life-threatened than any other group

The average life span of an American is almost 79 years old.  The average lifespan of a homeless American is 48 years old, 36 percent lower than other citizens.  This is a result of stress and trauma, more than anything else.  90 percent of all homeless men suffer from PTSD or other stress disorder.  100 percent of all homeless women suffer from PTSD.

Although most people consider this the fault of the homeless, it is not.  Most of the homeless find themselves on the street through no fault of their own, due to job loss or no cause eviction.  They are thrust into an impossible economic predicament and then treated like criminals, and due to the stress and poor health conditions, they die young.

3.       The homeless are severely attacked

About 64 percent of all women are assaulted in their lifetime.  About 92 percent of all homeless women are assaulted. All kinds of homeless suffer attacks, and the number of attacks have risen 23 percent in the last few years. 

Although the actual numbers seem small, this is because very few attacks on the homeless are reported, because there is such a distrust between the homeless and the police.  If they report a crime, they believe that they will be accused of something.

4.       The homeless can’t hide

The majority of citizens can feel a certain amount of security from the oppression of society if they go into their home and lock the door.  The homeless don’t have that luxury.  Even those who live in cars or tents are just as vulnerable their shelter as they are outside of it.  They are sometimes dragged out of their shelter, only to have it taken from them, because their shelter is not seen to be their possession or to be under the protection of the fifth amendment.

5.       Truth brings freedom

We can change this, if we all work on it together.  The primary source of the suffering of the homeless is the false idea that all the homeless are criminals or immoral.  There are two ways that effectively change this point of view.  The first is spending time working on a project with the homeless, for then the homeless are seen as equals.  The other is if a loud minority continue to speak of the humanity of the homeless.  Not just their pitiable state (like I did here), but about their common humanity with us, the shared citizenship, the joy of life, their hope for the future.

6. Every Tragedy is Made Worse by Homelessness
Black men live in oppression.  That oppression is made worse by homelessness.  Women's rights should be upheld-- but women on the streets have no rights even to survive.  LGBT rights are worse when they have no home to protect them.  Sex slaves are more frequently raped and suffer when they have no safe home to go to. Poor children find it more difficult to make it to school when they are homeless.   For every cause, homelessness is the worse tragedy behind every cause. 

Please, alongside your important issues, please speak about the homeless.  You can help give them the humanity they lack. 

Solutions to Homelessness: Stairway of Economic Development

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. 

When we recognize that each homeless individual has unique issues, and if we are going to allow them to solve their own 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.

Help Anawim Save Lives!

Last year in the Portland area, there were 56 people who died on the street.  Many of these folks died due to winter weather.  We are determined to see no one in our area die this year because of the cold and wet.  But we will need your help.

There simply aren’t enough shelters for everyone, but Portland’s weather even during winter isn’t so severe that people can’t survive—IF they have the right gear.  If you are living outside, you need tarps to prevent you and your items from getting wet.  You need sleeping bags to keep the winter overnight temperatures from causing hypothermia (Fun fact: a person can die from hypothermia even in 40 degree temps!).  And they need tents for fundamental shelter.

So we are collecting funds to keep our friends alive this winter to provide them with the supplies they need.

• ·         We found two man tents for just twenty dollars each.  We will need about 50 of them.
• ·         We found brown 9 x 12 tarps for 7.56 each.  We will need about a hundred of them.
• ·         We found 20 degree sleeping bags for 26 dollars each. We will need 50 of them.

This means to meet our target goal, we will need at least 3000 dollars.  I know that’s a lot of money.  But lives are at stake.

I’ll tell you what.  If any of you send us at least a hundred dollars toward this goal, we will send you a piece of Anawim art, created by one of our many artists. 

You can send us a check to “Anawim” at 3733 N Williams Portland OR 97227, or you can send us a donation through PayPal.  Please put on the tag line “Winter”.

Donate here: http://anawimcc.org/donate/

We really appreciate your help.  And so do our folks struggling to survive. 

Solutions to Homelessness: Homeless Inclusion and Leadership

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. 

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.

Solutions to Homelessness: Stop Criminalizing Survival Activity

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.

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. 

Solutions: Changing Public Perception

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. 

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. 

Why Can't Cities Find a Solution to Homelessness? Psychology of Poverty

As mentioned in a previous post, 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.

(New Republic, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122887/poor-people-dont-have-less-self-control
Social Science and Medicine:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953609002202 )

Why Can't Cities Find a Solution to Homelessness? 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 )

The Homeless Must Be Managed

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.

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.

An Open Letter to Portland/Multnomah County Officials

As a housed resident and taxpayer of Multnomah County, I would like to stand up and be counted as one who supports the homeless. It is not enough to eventually provide enough housing. It is not enough to make plans to get enough shelter. Right now, the citizens who happen to be without four walls and a roof are being abused by officials from various agencies.

I would like Multnomah County to be the first county in the United States to declare that we will not be party to the abuse of our homeless citizens. We will not tell them to move unless we give them a place to go. We will not verbally abuse our homeless, and openly reprimand our officials that do. We will not take the possessions of the homeless, unless we have given a 72 hour notice, like we require of renters who lapse in their payment.

We must not assume that our homeless are criminals, transients, lazy or the cause of the major ills of our society unless we have evidence that an individual does display such characters. We must not move our citizens around as if they were piles of garbage that no one wants around.

Let's treat our homeless as human beings. People who need help. Not just some walls to hide them, but caring people. Let's be a city that cares as much about our poor citizens as our wealthy ones.

Let's make this happen for those on the street right now.  Let's not wait.

Scarce Resources

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.

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.   

Lifestyle Aims

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.

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.

A Silver Bullet

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.

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.

Homeless and Jobs

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.

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.

(NBC News: Working Families homeless http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/28/15490042-employed-but-still-homeless-working-poor-say-homelessness-can-happen-to-anybody

Why is Employment Difficult for the Homeless? National Coalition of the Homeless  http://nationalhomeless.org/issues/economic-justice/ )

The Homeless are Centrally Located

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.

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.

There are homeless everywhere.  Services should go where they are.

(Point in Time Report  https://multco.us/housing-and-homelessness/2015-point-time-report  )

The Homeless and Transients

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.

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.

(Point in Time Report: https://multco.us/housing-and-homelessness/2015-point-time-report )

Causes of Homelessness

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.

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.

(National Coalition for the Homeless http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html )

The Homeless are Criminals

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.

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.

The homeless are over-represented in arrests ( Psychiatric Survey: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7641002# )

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.