“How’s that going to impact your housing?”

“How’s that going to impact your housing?”

It is one of the most important questions we should repeatedly ask the people we support as they develop and operationalize their support plan.

Let’s say a head of a household declares they want to look for employment. The question to ask? “How’s that going to impact your housing?”

Let’s say a middle aged single man declares he wants to seek out treatment for his addiction. The question to ask? “How’s that going to impact your housing?”

Let’s say a woman is working to regain custody of her children that had been taken into care. The question to ask? “How’s that going to impact your housing?”

I could go on. It is not, obviously, the only question to ask. But it is a question that is very important to ask whenever changes in life circumstance or context are afoot. Yes, people can and should realize many positive life changes once in housing. What we don’t want to have happen is for housing to become destabilized in the process. That is why the question is so important – it reinforces the importance of staying anchored in housing throughout the changes.

Look at employment again. Employment – whether full or part time – can have many positive impacts on life. It can also impact housing in many ways. It is potentially great for a person to have housing, but let us say it means their government benefits change. Budgeting is now in scope in a different way. Payment of rent is now in scope in a different way. Location of housing to the place of employment becomes a consideration. And so on. We have to be able to support people being employed AND housed; not sacrificing or losing housing as a result of employment.

Look at something like addiction treatment again. Stopping the use of alcohol or other drugs may be hugely beneficial depending on individual circumstances. Addiction treatment, however, can have lots of impact on housing. Is it in-patient or outpatient? What is the length of time being away if it is residential treatment? Is payment of rent still an option while away? Do government benefits change while accessing the treatment? How will personal social relationships change, potentially, through the efforts of seeking sobriety and how will that impact the social network that is currently influencing the man’s housing stability? And so on. If a person seeks treatment, we want them to achieve sobriety AND be housed; not sacrificing or losing housing as a result of accessing treatment.

Look at something like regaining custody of children. This may be of great benefit to the woman and the children from an emotional and social support perspective. That said, the size of the family unit impacts the number of bedrooms and size of unit. It impacts government benefits and budgeting. It may increase the need for parental supports. There are impacts with other systems that weren’t in place in the same way before like the education system or socio-recreational activities for the children or entire family unit. And so on. If a woman like this situation seeks custody of her children again (and let us assume for a moment it is a safe and appropriate thing to have happen), we want her to reunite with her children AND be housed; not sacrificing or losing housing as a result of the reunification.

A lot of really good intensive supports to people when in housing – especially those that have higher acuity – hinges upon teaching the art and skills of proactive problem solving. The more we get people thinking about how life decisions impact housing, the more that people can and will stay housed as they implement those life decisions. We can be the vehicle by which always applying the filter of “how do you think this will impact your housing?” becomes second-nature as people we support deliberate each life decision and its impacts.

Ending Homelessness and Ending Poverty Are NOT The Same Thing – They May Not Even Be Related

In America, there are about 46.5 million people living in poverty at any point in time. There are about 1.2 million households living in public housing. About 600,000 people are homeless at any given point in time, and there are an estimated 3.5 million different people that experience homelessness in any given year. The number of people experiencing homelessness and the number of people experiencing poverty are nowhere close to the same number. And the number of households living in public housing comes nowhere close to matching the number of people living in poverty. (I’d try to demonstrate the same thing in places like Canada, but there isn’t a common PIT count or anything similar to the AHAR. Where there is PIT Count data in Canada, the same arguments I present here work.)

Income has a strong relationship to the presence (or absence) of economic poverty. Income does not have a strong relationship to the prediction of homelessness. So maybe we need to rethink all questions we ask related to income.

Another oft-mentioned statement that people spending 50% or more of their gross monthly income on housing are at risk of homelessness. Problem is, no one ever really defines what is meant by “risk” in this instance in a credible way. And the statement, as it turns out, seems to be false or at least misleading. Most people that spend 50% or more of their monthly income on their rent do NOT experience homelessness.

Time and again there are advocates and others that state Rapid Re-Housing or Housing First programs must be a failure because people are still living in poverty. Programs that get people out of homelessness were never intended to get people out of poverty. You can’t claim a housing intervention is a failure just because it didn’t do something it never claimed to do.

You don’t need to end poverty to end homelessness – most poor people have never and will never experience homelessness. Maybe it is time we took a look at what economically poor people in your community do in order to find and maintain housing, rather than thinking getting out of poverty is the answer to homelessness.

Increasing income for people is not a bad thing. Heck, it should be encouraged and a focus of attention for each person you get housed. But, it is not the only thing, nor does future housing success hinge upon your ability to make this happen. And there is absolutely no reason to keep people homeless longer to sort out their income before they get housing. You are not setting them up for failure if you don’t get them up with more income first. You are helping them prepare for a housed, but economically precarious future – like tens of millions of others.

Maybe in a perfect world every community would have the ability to provide government assisted housing to folks experiencing homelessness that is geared to her/his income level. Maybe in some utopia every person spending 50% or more of their income on housing would have access to rent-geared-to-income housing. But that is more fantasy than reality. And while it may be preferable to have it that way, it is unlikely that there will ever be an instance where supply meets demand.

In conclusion, let me say this:

–       Increasing income is desirable, but not essential for future housing success, given most people that live in extreme economic poverty are never homeless;

–       There is likely much to be learned from low income households in your community of how they accessed and maintain housing;

–       Every time someone laments the lack of affordable housing in your community – while more is always desirable – there are likely hundreds or even thousands of households that are living in poverty in your community that are housed and not homeless – and there is no way they are all living in existing affordable or publicly assisted housing;

–       We need to do a better job educating ourselves and the general public and policy makers that programs that end homelessness are not designed to be programs that get people out of poverty;

–       We need to strategically work through for whom affordable housing should be created, and which households should have access to existing affordable housing stock – and an assessment to help us figure this out would be helpful to determine when something is “just” an affordability issue, and not an issue where other more intensive supports would be beneficial.

The Reason for Your Faith-Based Service

A friend recently told me that my message of working on housing as the first goal, avoiding a focus on sobriety first as a necessary step in order to access housing, and a very secular approach to addressing homelessness was not met favorably by some leaders within large faith-based homeless-focused ministries.

I am a little troubled by that given I have very positive relations with a lot of faith-based groups that offer services and housing to homeless and formerly homeless persons. It got me thinking about what the distinctions are between various groups that do what they do in the name of Jesus Christ (same guy, I think, with different interpretations of who He was and what He wants of humanity) and why some faith-based groups would welcome my message and others feel threatened by it. [As an aside, I am well aware that other faith groups are involved in ending homelessness, but I see greater variation within Christ-followers.]

In July I had the chance to hear John of the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions speak at the National Alliance to End Homelessness conference, and I also spoke with him one on one. In a transformational speech he gave at the conference, he remarked that 81% of Gospel Rescue Missions no longer require prayer prior to service. After I tweeted such a remark enthusiastically in my conference summary, several people chimed in that this relates to food service, not a bed. Others simply stated based upon their community’s Gospel Rescue Mission this could not be true. Others still (for example, some places in Oklahoma) wanted me to know that I may be relaying messages of change, but I should know with certainty that the Gospel Rescue Mission in their community speaks with venom when they state my name. [I appreciate I am provocative, but that doesn’t mean I am anti-Christian.]

This all got me thinking (again) about the interface between religion and service delivery in ending homelessness. This is not a blog directed to Rescue Missions, but I would encourage them to read it – along with the litany of inter-faith and ecumenical organizations that rally together in community after community to provide services and supports in their places of worship.

Here are the nine questions I came up with for faith-based groups involved in providing services to homeless people:

1. Do you label evidence of what works in ending homelessness as “secular” or “worldly” and tell your staff and service participants to avoid it or dismiss what the evidence suggests as being evil or incompatible with your Gospel mission/central teachings/doctrine?

I am not going to suggest rightness or wrongness or enter into a debate on science versus beliefs. I only ask that organizations be transparent to let service participants know one way or the other in the same way, for example, a school district may be transparent on teaching evolution or creationism.

2. Does anything that your organization does divide up people into “us” and “them” and suggest that “us” is better than “them” whether that be in the herelife or afterlife?

The experience of homelessness is fluid and the experience of homeless people in using services is even more fluid. Divisions within the fluidity can be difficult to navigate. If there is a side that you are asking people to choose, be clear what it is and what the consequences are of choosing or not choosing that side.

3. Do you try to change the behavior of each person that encounters your programs and focus on modification of behavior of each person with checklists, dos and do not’s, rules and reasons for becoming excluded or falling out of favor with your organization if they do not meet these expectations – in order to please God (or any other Deity)?

Behavior modification happens in loads of organizations, not just faith-based organizations. I have seen government funded and even operated programs that attempt behavior modification. What is different is whether there are rules for inclusion and exclusion. If a person does not subscribe to your beliefs and expected behaviors can they still get service from your organization or are they kicked out? That is the real question.

4. Do you see the weakness of the human condition as an affront to God that must be repressed and eradicated?

As a remarkably imperfect person myself, I want to hope and believe that God’s love is unconditional. But people with circumstances that may be characterized as worse/more severe than my own exist in society, including within the homeless population. There are serious questions to be answered in the difference between supports and efforts and social control; options to make improvements versus disdain for “sinful” attributes and behaviors.

5. Do participants in your programs have to pin all of their hopes, dreams and aspirations on the afterlife – or are they allowed to (and encouraged) to live in the here and now?

There is nothing wrong or improper about a belief in an afterlife, except when it unduly influences how homeless people are treated in the current day-to-day life. If I don’t get a meal or a bed or access to a case manager because I am deemed a sinner than needs to repent in order to achieve an acceptable afterlife, how does that address my needs in the here and now if I am not in a place psychologically or spiritually to address that right now?

6. Do service participants have to surrender themselves to God – and are you the vehicle for which that surrender should occur?

Submission is a concept that has existed in various cultures for millennia. Participants may choose to make this surrender. The question is whether they must do so, and if doing so has particular pecuniary or other interests specific to your organization that should be made known to the person prior to surrender.

7. Do people have to worship/pray to receive services in your organization or can they abstain?

If you offer shelter or food or access to basic needs – and likely you do – there is a matter of whether people must share your beliefs in order to access those things – or at least put themselves in the presence of it. Or can they choose not to share your beliefs and still access those basic human needs?

Or perhaps you are of the ilk that provides tiers of services based upon the extent to which you believe? For example, a bed is reserved for those that believe – a bed may be available for non-believers on a first come, first served basis.

8. Do you suggest certain behaviors or attributes are sinful because of your interpretation of the bible/scripture or because of doctrine within your religion – to the detriment of the people you try hard to serve?

I admit this one sounds much more judgmental than the others, but I bring it up because these sorts of interpretations of scripture abound and have serious consequences on whether people get access to service. In some small to medium sized communities where a faith-based organization is the only shelter service, for example, I have encountered gay and lesbian people living outside because they were not welcome in the shelter – even though they wanted shelter – unless they admitted they were a sinner because of their sexual preference and sought redemption. In other places, I have encountered large youth serving organizations that do not provide or allow service participants to have access to condoms because they believe premarital sex is such an affront to God that abstinence is all that is preached – even when they have full knowledge that service participants are engaged in sex whether through relationships or transactions with customers.

9. Are you serving homeless people, or are you trying to increase the size of your congregation – or both?

Evangelization is a huge part of many faith groups. People in society have free will, generally, to choose affiliation and participation. A free society in a democracy (not a theocracy) can continue to do so. The bigger question is the appropriateness of requirements of affiliation, conversion, baptism, etc. in order to receive services. When an organization makes membership and participation mandatory in order to get access to basic human needs like housing or food, it becomes coercive. It requires a (perhaps) downtrodden or broken spirit to enter into an unequal power dynamic in order to get out of homelessness. The central feature of these relationships is that they are either based upon retribution (“If you don’t repent, you will never enter the Kingdom of God – and you will not get services now either”) or reciprocity (“If I provide this essential thing for you, you need to show up at worship and go to Bible Study for me). Unfortunately, while both of these approaches may come from a well-intentioned place, they are nowhere near as effective as a reasoning approach to service delivery, which uses facts, appeals to personal values, respects personal goals, and realizes that people are in different stages of change on a fairly regular basis.

I share these thoughts because they are the burning questions is hundreds of communities if we are serious about wanting to end homelessness. I present them to start dialogue within your community. I make no claims to be above reproach for I am considerably flawed and an extraordinary sinner. But if redemption or submission were required in order to receive service in many of the communities I travel to, I can assure you that I, too, would be homeless in your community.

Yes, I am Canadian (sorry, eh?)

When all else fails in your attempts to make change in your community towards ending homelessness or increasing affordable housing, blame my nationality. Apparently this is a thing.

Summer. 2013. National Alliance to End Homelessness Conference. World-renowned expert (won’t mention names) says that I can’t possibly understand HUD requirements during a conference session because I am Canadian.

Spring. 2014. Oklahoma. Implementing the SPDAT is a bad idea (and not aligned with Gospel values) because…wait for it…I am Canadian.

Summer. 2014. Texas. I made an offer to help a shelter move forward with coordinated access and common assessment in that community. The Executive Director rejects the idea on FaceBook. Why? Because I am Canadian.

My mother came to Canada from Scotland. My father came to Canada from the Netherlands. My older brother – born in Canada – moved to and has become an American citizen. I am first generation Canadian, with a global perspective on ending homelessness.

I am Canadian.

That could be a bad beer commercial waiting to happen (for Canadian beer – we make fun of American beer because it is like making love in a canoe).

I could haul out Shane Koyczan’s awesome spoken word piece from the Vancouver Olympics, which does a good job explaining why we are more than stereotypes.

Or I could blare Classified’s alternate national anthem (Canadian rap…really awesome if you want to laugh and understand Canadians more…playing with stereotypes – “Oh Canada, we love our beaver.”).

Or I could talk about how being Canadian is being the little brother goalie in a game of road hockey (with Americans being the forwards taking slap shots at us).

I am proud to be a Canadian. That, however, does not make me unqualified to work or share ideas in the United States (or elsewhere for that matter), in the same way that Americans can share (and influence) Canadians.

First of all, I am proudly Nexus certified, allowing me Global Entry. I have been heavily vetted by both the Canadian and American governments to be able to be in that position and I am very happy to move across borders in this manner.

For US work, OrgCode files a W-8ECI. We are transparent when we have business dealings in the United States. We file taxes through Buffalo, New York.

I feel it is just as important to end homelessness in the US as Australia as the UK as Canada. Homelessness, in this sense, is more than a border. It is a condition that is happening because of so many common policies across borders.

I grew up in a border town (Sault Ste. Marie – which, coincidentally is the name of the city on BOTH sides of the border). I have been “speaking American” for a long time. The fact that I know the names of government programs, funding sources, benefits, etc. in two countries makes me additionally qualified, not under-qualified.

Allow me to make a very un-Canadian statement: I am good at what I do. That goodness transcends borders. I am grateful to have been to the White House with the Community Solutions group, and I am also grateful to have been honoured with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Best Practice in Affordable Housing earlier in my career.

Some of the people that pick my brain the most on how to end homelessness or increase affordable housing in a community are – you guessed it – not Canadians. There would not be a demand for my time in such a way if I was an idiot or if I had nothing to offer non-Canadians.

So the next times someone pulls out the “but he’s not from here” card, remember this: I am working my butt off to end homelessness and increase affordable housing throughout the developed world. Believing in my ideas and expertise is more important than my nationality. My passion to end homelessness knows no borders.

Oh. Canada.

The Power of a Tool

Before the conference in DC for the National Alliance to End Homelessness, I reached out to an HMIS administrator that I trust to ask him about the impact coordinated access and common assessment has had in his community. I am going to protect the identity of his community so that they are not bombarded with requests about what/when/how, but his response is overwhelming to me (and his email back to me makes up the rest of this blog):

For assessments, 183 staff from 14 different agencies in [NAME OF COMMUNITY] have screened more than 1,300 individuals since August 2013 with the VI-SPDAT, 100% of which have been recorded (from day one) in our HMIS. It’s worthy of note that the vast majority of the 14 agencies using this de-centralized “no wrong door” approach are not The [COC funded] or DHS-funded either. It’s not about a funding mandate, it’s about providers being energized by a tool that they repeatedly describe as empowering their staff to “finally know what to do” – meaning knowing what intervention to recommend, versus “this is what we have available, regardless of whether you need it, so do you want that? If not, you get nothing.”

We’ve used that data to better target services: [our community] has completed three targeted 100 day initiatives. The first two were for veterans only, and our third (and current) 100 initiative is for all single individuals experiencing homelessness. In each of our three initiatives, we have ended homelessness for over 200 individuals:

• 207 veterans were housed (96 of which were experiencing chronic homelessness) from August 9, 2013 to November 30, 2013

• 202 veterans were housed (108 of which were experiencing chronic homelessness) from December 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014

• 202+ single individuals were housed from May 24, 2014 to now (including 121 veterans)

Also worthy of note, as of this last week, every person who scored 13 or higher has been assigned a housing navigator. Our providers meet every week and begin our meeting by pulling our universal registry of VI-SPDAT results publicly, and starting with the highest score moving downwards, we send referrals for every permanent supportive housing or rapid rehousing unit that becomes available within the city. 100% transparent, and really, really energizing.

Lastly, we’re using this data to advocate for increased resources. Using the strong foundation of evidence that VI-SPDAT and SPDAT provide, our community has advocated for funding to move people from our registry (and the streets) into permanent housing (either permanent supportive or rapid rehousing).

• $900,000 in local rapid rehousing funding for non-veterans in FY2014

• $4.7 million in local permanent supportive housing for veterans (we have a lot of rapid rehousing/SSVF but not enough PSH for veterans. VI-SPDAT gave us the data to say “this is how much we need” to funders.)

• $1.5 million expansion in local rapid rehousing funding for non-veterans in FY2015, because the original $900K wasn’t enough.

Thank you for making this possible. I am deeply indebted to you for your amazing tools. They are making a difference for our community in ways I never dreamed would be actually possible.

Gone Fishing

Literally, I have gone fishing.

This is the blog each year where I tell you there will be no blog because I am not at work. I am doing my best to practice self-care. Which I suck at.

I will tell you a bit more about what I am doing if you are interested and want to read more.

I am in the middle of nowhere in Northern Ontario. There is no cell coverage where I am . I am NOT checking email on my phone. This is very hard for me but important to do.

I am spending time with my children. This is important and precious to me. They do not see me nearly enough throughout the year, beyond which FaceTime allows – and most Saturdays.

I am with my brother and my father, and an uncle as well. These are all men that I respect and admire, and all of whom are very different than I am. We are not a family of long-haired hippies. I am the black sheep.

I am fishing for Smallmouth Bass. I am not a good angler. I will not catch many. I don’t care.

Camping on an island in the middle of a lake, I am more interested in the call of a loon, the northern lights, the campfire, and feeding people camp chow and my kids being happy.

I will come back to work refreshed and ready to take the next step to end homelessness or improve affordable housing in your community. Until then, if your email can wait until next week, please hold off.