I’m Not at my Best – I Need Home for a Rest
You’ll have to excuse me
I’m not at my best
I’ve been gone for a month
I’ve been drunk since I left
These so called vacations
Will soon be my death
I’m so sick from the drink
I need home for a rest
There is a certain crowd who would have read the above lines and immediately recognized them as lyrics to one of the greatest Spirit of the West songs to party to.
It’s the sentiment of the song that I love – needing home for a rest after indulging beyond what might be considered a healthy consumption threshold.
As far as I’m concerned any person can choose to drink or not drink. That is their business, not mine. As I have argued previously, sobriety is not a precondition for housing success.
This doesn’t mean there won’t be some people that may choose to have sober living. I support that choice for people as well. I have many dear friends and professional colleagues that have found sobriety in their lives because it made sense to them.
It also doesn’t mean that drinking doesn’t come with consequences. It does. For some people, the consequences are quite severe. But I will not judge because of an addiction.
There remains no shortage of homeless programs out there where the consumption of alcohol or other drugs after a period of sobriety will result in immediate exit from the program – even eviction in most instances. Seems to me that people that are in housing (some types of supportive housing, rental assistance programs, and/or transitional housing programs) are being punished with homelessness for the return of using a substance they previously admitted to being powerless over.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, many of whom have personally gone to great lengths to make amendments where it was appropriate to do so and would not cause harm to the other person, go on to harm others with homelessness.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, many of who have personally had relapses in their own journey to sobriety so harshly react to others that also relapsed. Guess if you aren’t sober forever after rehab then you are a bad example to others trying to achieve sobriety. Rehab is for quitters – not re-joiners, I guess.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, many of whom have personally achieved sobriety but have no other professional training consider themselves experts in addictions and worthy to make such assessments of others. I’ve had my appendix out. I can empathize with other people that may need to have their appendix out. That doesn’t mean you want me taking out your appendix. I’m also missing my gall bladder, broken a hip, and had a couple knee surgeries. Again I’m thinking you don’t want me performing surgery on you because while I have experienced those things, I’m not an expert in any of them. There’s a place for peer supports, but with the caveat that they perform functions related directly to their experience and are trained in how to do so.
Odd that service providers that support sobriety, most of whom enjoy the stability of housing themselves would be willing to take away one of the key factors that supports a reduction in substance use or even stopping altogether. Peer reviewed, published studies like this one and thisone and program research like this one have clearly shown homeless persons are more likely to decrease or stop using if they have a home, and it saves money when use of other services is decreased.
If I am so sick from the drink, I want home for a rest. Not others to judge me. Not others to make me homeless again. But maybe that’s because I am passionate about ending homelessness, and not pretending that homeless and housing programs are really substance use treatment programs.
Be Awesome to Each Other
“Be awesome to each other, as I have been awesome to you.”
I’m paraphrasing – and I am no theologian or scripture scholar – but I think that is essentially the message in the 13th Chapter of the Book of John. It was a new commandment given by the most famous homeless guy of all time to the people that looked up to him and hung out with him.
I find it fascinating that there are so many Christians out there that can worship a homeless fellow on Sunday, and forget all other homeless people come Monday. I find it even more fascinating that some of those same Christians run “faith based” service organizations. But let’s be clear, they operate their ideological-interpretation-towards-Christianity-based-service organizations.
I am not anti-Christian. I am the same guy who used to be a Christian chaplain in a mental health facility. I have a rather large crucifix tattooed on one of my arms, and not for aesthetic reasons.
Perhaps you’ve heard about how God helps those that help themselves. I have heard this phrase from many Christian service organizations and Christian leaders in community discussions about homelessness. Can you please show me where that phrase exists in Christian scripture? Oh wait. It doesn’t.
Jesus, it is said, multiplied loaves and fishes so that all would have enough to meet their needs. I checked again. There is no mention of the bread or sea critters going only to those that repented, publicly declared love to him, were baptized, showed a bank statement demonstrating need, or were without fault.
There are teachings about caring for others. One of my faves is the Good Samaritan. The dude he helps out is of a different culture and faith. The Samaritan helps out anyways. The priest and Levite that passed by the Jewish man that had been beaten and robbed do not. The Samaritan doesn’t ask the hurt guy in obvious need to convert. The Samaritan gets the guy a room at the inn (that means, made sure he didn’t have to sleep outside). Took care of his wounds. Provided some aftercare. And he didn’t say, as far as I know, “Hey look now, guy…you have a maximum stay of 7 days and then after that you are on your own and can’t possibly need assistance from me or anyone else at any point in the future.” In fact he told the innkeeper, as the story goes, that if there is more expense incurred, he would pay for it.
The Teacher, so goes stuff written in the Book, also had the habit of hanging out with sex workers, adulterers and people with some badass ailments like leprosy. Provides lessons to others about this group too, eh? “Let those without sin cast the first stone” shut some shmarmy “judgy-judgersons” up pretty fast, didn’t it? “Don’t judge others unless you want to be judged” is another paraphrased goodie.
Got another doozie for you – love your neighbor as yourself.
Not “love your housed neighbor”.
Not “love only those folks that you think may not negatively influence your property values”.
Not “love your neighbor if they are Christian or profess a strong desire to be one”.
Not “if you are housed and the other person is not they can’t be considered a neighbor, so don’t worry about it”.
Not “love your sober neighbor”.
Not “love only those that have never had conflict with the law”.
Not “if your neighbor happens to be nuts then seriously pity them, but keep them homeless because you would only be setting them up for failure if you thought about putting a roof over their head like you’ve got”.
I’ll stop there with lovely love examples.
And yet there are some Christian missions that continue to reinforce a deserving and undeserving poor. There are some places that make you pray for your supper. Other joints make you meet with the chaplain or enroll in bible study if you are there for more than two days. Last month I was at a shelter that required everyone staying there to start the day with group prayer and devotion with the Chaplain (and they get government funding to help operate the shelter). Many Christian service organizations demand sobriety, even though there seems to be evidence that Jesus either drank (well, turned it into his blood, I guess) and/or supported others in drinking (“Wedding of Cana for a thousand please Alex”). I’ve even seen an entire city of Christian shelter providers that require people wanting to stay there have a criminal background check and prove they have no offences in order to spend the night there. The bible talks about visiting people in prison. I guess it forgot the part where people get out of prison sometimes and still want visitors. There are places that think the person has to be rehabilitated into a good Christian before they can be considered for housing. There are other Christian services I have encountered that think it is appropriate for a person to undertake community services to pay back the “debt” of having received goods or services before they can be considered for shelter.
Thankfully not all Christian organizations share those practices. But there are so many that do that it really makes me shake my head. I have to think better service can be offered that meets people where they are at in the way that Christ does so many times in the gospel.
Be awesome to each other. I have this feeling being awesome to others means housing them no matter what, but that’s just my interpretation of things. Be awesome to each other also means cutting out the judgment and the evangelization and getting onto the business of serving others based upon their needs, not your beliefs.
Otherwise, God grant me the serenity not to lose my shit.
Amen.
Why People Don’t Believe the Facts
A few months back I lamented on my Facebook page that I was frustrated that I could have a room full of people and walk through the data and evidence supporting a Housing First approach, and people would still debate it. One of my pals, Marcella Maguire, commented that it was because of ideology. That got me thinking and researching why and how people’s beliefs influence what they see as truth…or how and when truth can influence people’s beliefs.
Then a couple weeks back I was doing another training and one attendee was quite adamant that just because something was published in a peer reviewed journal or had data to support it didn’t make it correct. I was dumbfounded by the statement. But it also inspired me to keep thinking and researching because if we are going to go about ensuring there is adequate affordable housing, effective social policy for marginalized populations, sufficient social welfare, put an end to homelessness – or any of the other pursuits that I am passionately invested in – then we have to better understand why some people don’t believe the facts.
One of the reasons people don’t believe the facts when presented to them or go to great lengths to try and persuade others that the data is faulty or not from reliable sources is because of something called “motivated reasoning”. It turns out our emotional responses and ability to reason is intertwined. We are hard-wired to have an emotional response to information quicker than our conscious thoughts. If people are presented with information that supports our pre-existing worldview or thoughts on a subject, we accept it with open arms. If people are presented with information that challenges how we already feel about something, it is our natural human instinct to see the information as a threat. When we are threatened, as a species, we apply our fight or flight response. So, we either ignore the information or we attack the sources/reliability of the information.
Another reason people don’t believe facts are directly related to how data is used in the modern age. A lot of facts are misinterpreted or select pieces of information are taken completely out of context and used in a manner to support an argument that they were never intended or designed to do. This is done entirely to support a point of view, not to be scientific at all. Put into the mix that loaded questions can be used in polling and surveying to simply prove an existing point of view or reject another point of view, and you realize quite quickly that we have become accustomed to “facts” being used in this way. Let me give you an example…if I asked 100 people if they would like to pay less in taxes, I would guess that most people would say yes. If it is not explained that there are budget deficits, service cuts that people depend upon, crumbling infrastructure, etc. that are all paid for by taxes then they are not really taking the full picture into account. On top of that, it has been well proven in psychology that scientific evidence is prone to misinterpretation and selective reading.
In this day and age, producing facts, figures and pretty graphs is quite popular. But seldom are the methods of the data capture shared. As a result, people can create information that simply supports their point of view. Take for example the Pepsi Challenge. First of all, it isn’t a double-blind study. Pepsi always wins – well, of the data that Pepsi shares with us. Ever heard a radio or TV advertisement where someone took the Pepsi Challenge and actually chose Coke? Surely there is at least one person out there that has taken the test that chose Coke.
Then there is the matter of terminology. As I have gone to lengths to talk about elsewhere, you can have a practice that is supported by evidence like Housing First. But if the phrase is misused to talk about activities that actually are not aligned with the practices that the data supports you can have people that reject the fact that Housing First works. Why? Because they have seen a version of something that was called “Housing First” that really wasn’t “Housing First” and therefore the data presented doesn’t align with their experience.
Yet another reason why people ignore or debate facts is because they do not believe the messenger. Even when instructed to be unbiased in listening to information, people form part of their impression on the credibility of the information based upon who is delivering it. The very notion of an “expert” is polarizing depending on whether the listener can relate to the messenger’s experience, expertise, education, and even morality. The observable attributes of the messenger can also have an impact. For example, non-white people trying to convince others that Obama is not Muslim has been proven to be more persuasive that white people doing the same thing.
I thought for quite some time that if I just bombarded people with the facts that they would get “it”. Truth is, however, that with some folks the more they are overloaded with empirical, unbiased evidence – even published, peer reviewed findings – the more tenaciously they hold onto their worldview and reject the information. For some it is as if the acceptance of new information can rattle their entire belief system and identity. Perhaps it is a slippery slope…if a person accepts that facts point to an opposite conclusion of what they have held true in one matter of their life, what about other parts of their life that they also thought to be true that may not be?
What does this all mean?
For sure, Marcella was right. My inability to get through to some groups using facts was because of the ideological stance of the receivers of the information.
But it also means that I need to do a better job or explaining to people why and how certain conclusions are reached on the information, pointing out how biases may have been present in the methods or the use of terms being incorrectly.
And it also means that I need to carefully consider my role and obligations as a messenger. Better considering my audience may allow me to better relate to their morality or worldview or appreciation of different types of expertise or experience. That in and of itself may make what I want to share more credible. It may even mean (gulp) that wearing something other than a t-shirt and jeans is appropriate for certain recipients of my message.
Your Organization’s Identity Crisis
Instead of reading this blog, if you’d rather watch it as a rant on YouTube, click here.
Does your organization know what it is? Because the more I travel the more I find there are many organizations that have an identity crisis. They are…
…a substance abuse program masquerading as a homelessness program…
…an evangelical outlet to bring in more followers and increase the congregation masquerading as a homeless shelter…
…an alternate transportation provider for individuals without bus fare masquerading as a street outreach provider…
…a soup kitchen that measures its success by the number of bellies fed rather than the number of people that don’t need it anymore, masquerading as a food security program that ends homelessness…
…a family counseling program masquerading as a permanent supportive housing program…
…a youth club masquerading as a youth housing program…
…a bible study group masquerading as a housing help resource…
…a homeless shelter masquerading as permanent housing…
…a group of buildings and organizations lumped together in close geography masquerading as an integrated campus working in partnership…
…a senior’s fellowship organization masquerading as a drop-in center…
…a 211 community information line masquerading as coordinated access for the homeless service delivery system…
If you are a homeless service provider I know what you should be. You should be the champions of housing. You should be focused on ending each individual’s or family’s homelessness first and foremost. That is your job. You exist in order to not exist. It isn’t about you…it is about the people you serve. Figure that out, and you know who you are.
Geez, Don’t Let a Few Little Facts Get in the Way of Your Perceptions of People on Welfare
Like me, maybe you have a few (ahem) “friends” on Facebook that post things that make you cringe. Lately, a few posts in particular have driven me to write this blog. I was going to try and just provide insights through comments on their posts, or send them a direct message, but figured this medium may do even better.
I start by posting the memes that I have seen more than once in the last month, which tells me that if they are being shared with frequency, these are resounding with some people…
In a nutshell, what’s wrong with these pictures?
Several of the images racialize poverty. Truth is, most recipients are Caucasian.
There is a perception that those that receive welfare have large families and an increasing number of children to maximize benefits. Truth is, most welfare recipients are single persons and very small families (the average is 1.8 children per household in fact for TANF…which coincidentally is almost the same as the national average; the average size is 2.4 when you consider all welfare benefits, which is a massive decline of family size of welfare receiving families since the 1960s).
Somewhere along the way the stigma of being a substance user was attached to be on welfare. Truth is, most people with problematic substance use in our society do not receive welfare. And another inconvenient truth, it costs way, way more to test people on welfare (which is an intrusive violation, but I will park that for now) than it “saves” when users are caught. Oh, and it is private enterprises that profit from the drug testing with your tax dollars (sometimes with direct ties to the elected official that was the crusader to put the drug testing in place). Plus, in locations like Florida do you know what percentage tested positive for drug use? Two percent. That’s a fact.
Welfare receipt is implied to be a lifetime choice. Truth is most recipients (4 out of 5) receive benefits for less than 5 years – and most of those for much less than that. The single largest group that benefits from welfare is children.
Related to point 4, you have probably heard the stories of the families that have been living off welfare for generations, or the woman who has bilked the system for millions using fake identities and fictitious addresses (anyone else remember Ronald Reagan’s Chicago Welfare Queen Stories…and they were just that – stories made up of just fiction loosely associated with some facts not attributed to any one person). Truth is, fraud within the welfare system is lower than corporate fraud. For example, the rate of food stamp fraud is less than 1%. Oh, and as for the generations of welfare receipt, I just love this quote from Adrian Sinfield, Emeritus Professor of Social Policy at the University of Edinburgh in reviewing a recent UK report where there was an attempt to find families where no one in the family had worked for three generations: “People working and living in the area knew all about such people, of course, but not well enough, it turned out, to be able to identify any of them.”
Read across these memes, and it also seems to suggest the “free money” on welfare allow people that don’t work to enjoy a glamorous lifestyle of parties and higher end consumer products. Truth is, while benefit levels vary dramatically by region economic poverty is still a reality for welfare recipients. Let me give you an example from where I live. If you are a single person without dependents and without disability, you get $230 per month in money to meet your basic needs (food, personal products, etc.) and $376 in shelter allowance to rent a place. What would you do with $606 per month in a community where the average market rent for a Bachelor unit is $840 per month or a one-bedroom is $1,040 per month?
Many people make comments that people on welfare should not have a smart phone – or any phone for that matter (yet, having a phone is kind of important, I hope you’d agree, to have contact with potential employers). Or there is a critique of the type of phone…or phone package…or purse that the phone is in…or manicured nails that stroke the phone…or whatever. Truth is, people that experience economic poverty experience no difference in impulse control in consumer spending that anyone else in society – it simply has a bigger impact. But even with that said, you don’t know when they got the phone, as it could have been before they were receiving benefits or even a gift from a relative or a $0 down monthly package where the phone company undertook its own financial risk assessment and still decided the person was a good candidate for its product. And if the reality in your community is similar to the rate of benefits received in my community (read section 6 again) please tell me how someone uses their welfare money to buy that phone?
I’ll leave it at those 7 comments for now because they are most related to the memes. I could go on and on. The false perceptions of welfare, though, only make it harder to convince elected officials to consider increasing rates to meet the costs of today’s community; to truly ensure people have the chance to achieve vitality and security.
Assessment & Prioritization Tools: What to Look For
Is your community trying to move towards common assessment as part of coordinated access? You should be. In response to inquiries from a few avid blog readers (thanks!) here are some questions you should ask when your organization/community is choosing an assessment and prioritization tool.
1. Is it grounded in evidence?
There is no shortage of ideas on what may be a good thing to assess when a homeless person or family seeks services. Unfortunately, too many communities come up with their own list (sometimes LONG list) of things to assess without those ideas actually being grounded inevidence of what works, and the main currents of thought and practice in service delivery. That which we think and that which we know are often two totally different things. Your assessment tool should be grounded in knowledge and data, not unsubstantiated thoughts or feelings.
2. Has it been tested?
Given the assessment tool informs which type and intensity of service an individual or family may be offered, it is important to make sure the tool actually does the things that the designers of the tool thought it should do in the first place. This requires extensive testing and feedback in trial versions of the assessment tool. It also requires testing the tool against other potential tools and the use of no tool at all.
3. Has it been independently evaluated?
Researchers and developers involved with the tool do an incredible amount of leg work to get the tool off the ground. After implementation, having a credible independent evaluation completed is a good idea. An independent point of view can examine the data that comes from the tool from a fresh perspective, explore the processes involved with the tool, and also look at the outcomes that arise from using the tools.
4. If two different people are using the tool, will they get reliable results?
The only way to know this for sure is to have an independent examination of inter-rater reliability in the use of the tool. What this really gets at is whether independent bias or other related factors unduly (and even unintentionally) sways the results of the assessment.
5. Is feedback from end users of services, frontline staff and others incorporated?
Any assessment tool worth it’s salt will take the time to robustly gather feedback from a broad cross-section of individuals and families with whom the tool has been used to better understand what they think of it and how the tool could be improved. Getting the input from frontline staff that either undertake assessments using the tool and/or use the data from the tool to inform support services should also be given an opportunity to provide feedback and input into the tool improvements.
6. Does it help inform decision-making?
Assessment tools don’t make decisions – they inform decisions. It is a mistake to anthropomorphize a tool and think that it has a brain or speaks. It doesn’t. The information gleaned from the assessment feeds into a prioritization process. If there isn’t a defined process for how to use the information from the assessment to inform prioritization, then the assessment information is misaligned with how it needs to be used.
7. Is there any utility to the tool after the initial assessment?
Having a score or conclusion on depth of need or type of support from an assessment begs the question – so what? The assessment information should help guide service delivery for particular populations with specific types of needs. It is even possible to use the same tool that was implemented at initial assessment at predetermined intervals to actually see if acuity of the individual or family is going down over time.
8. Will it improve housing outcomes over the longer-term?
Longitudinal information helps inform whether the support programs that the individual or family gets connected to as a result of the assessment actually improves housing stability. If the assessment tool highlights the areas that benefit from the most intensive types of supports so that housing does not become destabilized, then the tool is also important for promoting and even supporting longer term housing stability.
OrgCode Consulting developed the Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) that meets all of the requirements of what is asked above. You can learn more about the SPDAT here and here. You may also be interested in the integrated Vulnerability Index (VI) and SPDAT Prescreen “Supertool” which you can learn more about here.