Why A Lottery Approach to Service and Housing Access Will Never End Homelessness
Should a family be lucky to receive a housing voucher or chosen based upon their need? Should a man get access to shelter this evening based upon his need or because he was lucky enough to be chosen from a line outside the shelter? Should scarce resources be first come, first served; or, should resources be aligned to those that need it the most? If you don’t have enough resources is it better to target them to those who need them the most or those lucky enough to receive them?
Get rid of luck.
Use your data.
Target.
The time has come to triage who needs services the most, not who is lucky enough (or capable enough) to receive them. The time has come to get rid of waiting lists and start using priority lists. The time has come to stop having men and women line up for shelter in the hopes of being accepted for the night.
When we triage and prioritize, we more intelligently invest our resources into those that need them the most. When we are more selective on who needs emergency services the most, we can do a better job focusing on getting people out of shelter and into housing.
I get how and why lottery approaches started. I get how on the surface it appears to be a more fair way of allocating access when there isn’t enough to meet demand. But it never critically asks if the reason why we don’t have enough resources is because of how entry was designed. Furthermore, it the construct of “fairness” and “luck” are not interchangeable. What we need to do is ensure that those that need services the most are the ones that get them first.
Until such time that you get out of luck and into strategic prioritization, expect there to be an overwhelming demand on all emergency services, especially shelter. Expect that service providers will tell you they can’t possibly do coordinated access or common assessment. Expect that service providers will want more resources invested into emergency services than the solution – housing with supports. And expect that homelessness will only get worse – the overall number will grow and the depth of need will also grow.
Lottery approaches will never end homelessness.
25 People You’ll Find Anywhere/Everywhere
I was having a chat with my pal Becky about the sorts of people encountered seemingly everywhere, regardless of what country, state/province, county or city. These are the people that emerge when giving a seminar, presentation, workshop or keynote on ending homelessness or affordable housing. I have narrowed it down to 25 different types of people often encountered.
1. The “We’re Unique” Person
Loves the idea. But won’t move forward with activating the idea because they are convinced that their organization or community is so different that practices based upon evidence and replicated numerous times elsewhere, will not work in their place. More often than not, this person has not visited a number of other places to see programs in operation. Said person may not ever been out of state or own a passport.
2. The “We Should be Exempt” Person
Loves the idea. Wants to see it implemented. Just not within their own organization. Because that, you see, would disrupt what they are doing which, if you don’t know, is more awesome (but has no data to prove it).
3. The “Intimidates Everyone So No One Ever Speaks Up In Front of Them But Others Have Special Meetings to Strategize About Them” Person
People walk on eggshells around them. They inflict so much fear in others that in order to get things done in the community, others have to arrange special meetings behind the scenes to either neutralize them or make decisions outside of their influence. In other circles this person may be referred to as a bully. Said person sees themselves as a consensus builder and partnership person in a lot of instances.
4. The “Yes, But…” Person
Agrees with everything said and agreed upon. Then provides a reason that contradicts agreement or minimizes agreement or shows that they never even came close to agreeing in the first place. They want to be seen as a team player, without playing on the team.
5. The “In All My Years Experience” Person
Plays the “I’ve been at this longer than you so I know better” card either by mentioning years, who was in elected office, names of initiatives or actual career years so as to outline that they have either seen it all before and what you are presenting/discussing is not new, or that they have wisdom that exceeds what is being suggested.
6. The “I Have Read Something You Have Not” Person
Most often they bring out a really obscure article to try and demonstrate intellect, rather than a more seminal piece on the subject. “Have you read Jennifer Pyke’s ‘Suicide in community based case management service’ from 1992?” If you haven’t read the article, they will try to explain that their position is supported from that one piece (well, not Pyke’s piece) – and therefore, anything suggested contrary to that position is not guided in evidence. (Note: they may have read said piece in their undergrad and/or may name the author or name of the article incorrectly. Further note that in place of “I have read something” they may play the “I had a professor once that said” card.)
7. The “You Don’t Understand How Hard This Is” Person
Assumes that any person that suggests a new approach for doing things must have no frontline experience and/or not appreciate that working with people with complex issues can be difficult.
8. The “We Tried Almost the Identical Thing” Person
Dismisses new ways of doing things by suggesting that the almost identical thing has been tried and it did not work or that they could not get it funded long-term. This is a warning shot across the bow for anyone considering buying in that they just need to look at them and know this is a bad idea.
9. The “We Would Need Our Own Study First” Person
Wants just one more local study. They refuse to believe that evidence from other places is transferable. Some of these people have friends that work at the local university. A grant will be necessary. That will take time.
10. The “We Invented This…Thanks For Validating Us” Person
Though rarely coming close to even slightly resembling what is being presented, they try to increase their cache or raise their profile with their peers by suggesting that they have been doing what you describe long before the idea was suggested.
11. The “You’re Not From Here, Are You?” Person
If only you (presenter) were from this place, you would understand things that cannot be explained in words. Because you are NOT from here, you cannot possibly understand. Therefore, we cannot do what you suggest because you are not from here. (And what are you anyway? Canadian?)
12. The “You Are Younger Than I Am, Let Me School You How the World Really Works” Person
This is the age card where living longer must mean smarter, better and more informed. This one is more often played by someone towards the end of her/his career. They may be seeking artificial respect that is not deserved.
13. The “No Matter How Much Data and Information You Give Me” Person
Numbers do not influence this person at all. Doesn’t matter where the numbers come from. Doesn’t matter what the numbers show. Doesn’t matter how many documents, journal articles, datasets, etc. are presented – there is no persuading this person that there is evidence. They may also say head-scratching things like, “Data isn’t always right, you know.”
14. The “That Sounds Expensive” Person
Loves the idea. Because it is a new idea, it comes across as expensive. This person always thinks this means new money rather than re-investing existing money. They also blow the actual costs way out of proportion because of some unknown and inexplicable local inflation factor.
15. The “Wait… Are You Suggesting We House People Rather than Rehabilitate Them?” Person
This person loses their friggin’ mind at the possibility of a paradigm shift in how they have delivered their services. They are aghast. Sometimes incredulous. Many time angry. Almost always completely freaked out to the point of paralysis.
16. The “God Spoke To Me and it is Different Than What you Suggest” Person
This is the “higher power” card. Sometimes when spoken it implies that the presenter does not know God – or does not know God as well, or does not their God. Sometimes this person will ask if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior. (Tip: do not ask this person what God’s voice sounds like. They get angry. Second tip: do not suggest that Jesus was not a white American.)
17. The “We Only Serve the ‘Hardest of the Hardest to Serve’ And This Won’t Work for Them” Person
In this instance, the person is making a claim that their population with complex needs is more complex than any other complex population. As such, they are disinterested in making changes in what they do because they assume that it will not be effective. If you ask this person to outline by which evidence they know they serve the hardest of hardest to serve they “just know” or will claim “everyone knows that” but do not provide evidence.
18. The “My Boss Should Have Been Here” Person
This person would love to make change. And that may actually be true. Except they cannot seem to take the information back or impact change because their boss did not come and their boss is too busy with other things to actually ever come and learn about the changes necessary to be more effective.
19. The “I Agree with You 100% But Won’t Do Anything” Person
This is the “yes man” on an extreme level. At every step along the way they want you to know they are 100% in agreement. They often shake your hand. They often tell you that you are amazing as a presenter. Then they do nothing. Ever.
20. The “But We Serve Families” Person
If you speak to a mixed audience of single and family service providers, this is the person that will suggest that anything that has been said (even if you said and outlined individuals and families) will not work for families. If you ask them why, they will say it is because they are families. You may ask them what they mean by this, and they will tell you that families are different than singles. You may agree with this and they will nod and say “so you know what I mean”. You will claim that you don’t. They will ask if you are currently a family service provider. You will say no. They will say, “I don’t know how to explain it to you.” You will assert that you spoke about families as well as individuals. They will deny you said that or will say something like “but I know what works for families”.
21. The “We Don’t Have the Training to Do That” Person
Love the idea. Would love to implement the idea. Thinks their own staff or organizations are morons. Would love to say yes to moving forward. Refuse to do so because of training inadequacies. If you offer training, they will claim people are too busy or resistant to training. Even when it is free.
22. The “But What Do We Do in the Meantime” Person
Love the idea. Want to make change. Just cannot make change. Why? Because they are currently doing something else. If you suggest they can have a plan to switch from one approach to another, they get stuck on the fact they are doing something different now.
23. The “We Have Data That Shows Better Results” Person
This is a tricky person. They know that data is important. However, they never knew that having a control group was important or that showing their population in the context of an entire population was important. You suggest that they can get even better results doing something different, and they cannot see how this is possible. (Note: this person may name university professors or grad students that have helped them create the data they have as legitimacy for not considering new information. Most often they will ask you if they know Doctor So and So.)
24. The “We Just Spent A Lot of Money Doing…” Person
This person is usually flummoxed by the fact that they did not hear you speak earlier. They are at a loss to explain why they created a campus or built transitional housing. As such, they insist they have to keep going with what will NOT work because they spent money on it.
25. The “We Need a Pilot” Person
Likes the idea. Wants to buy in. Scared. Doesn’t matter how much data or evidence there is, they insist that they need a smaller-scale version to try first before they are committed so that they can have “local proof of concept” and/or “convince people locally it works”. Regardless of how amazing the pilot results may be, this person feels they need another pilot to confirm the first pilot was not a fluke. You explain that pilot projects existed once upon a time to be innovative and have become an excuse nowadays to not implement what actually works across the board out of fear of resistance. They look at you dumb-founded.
10 Women Leaders in this Industry
My kids don’t really understand what I do for a living. That will come with time. It doesn’t stop me from thinking about how they may make their mark on the world – maybe even in this field – and who may be best suited to shape their understanding of the industry and what it means to be an excellent leader within it.
One night on a recent weekend at home I got to thinking about leaders in the sector, and specifically women leaders, that are exemplary for my sons and daughter in different ways. I want my boys and girl to know both men and women leaders, to be able to understand and respect gender difference, to be better positioned to understand and promote equality and equity. Moreover, it is critically important to me that my children respect the intelligence, community impacts, presence and contributions of women and to realize that there are a broad range of leadership skills to be learned from when examining different leadership styles and approaches. This isn’t just about leadership on “women’s issues” this is leadership across a spectrum of issues, and coming to realize that women and men (and people that identify as trans rather than by woman or man) influence policy, programs, thought processes, funding, politics, decision-making, and public consciousness.
In no particular order, the women I thought of that I would be pleased for my children to be influenced by are:
Becky Viv Margiotta (Social Change Agency) – tenacious innovator; steadfast purpose; change catalyst; integrity of experience; embraces imperfect action over perfect planning; creates new ways of thinking and doing
Susan McGee (Homeward Trust) – brave transformer; cultural sensitivity and protection; community leadership; manages ambiguity; lives “continuous improvement” every single day
Anne Nolan (Crossroads Rhode Island) – community impact; strategic; steady grace; supportive of her senior management team while commanding excellence to the fullest potential of each
Laura Zeillinger (USICH) – vision; “doer”; unassuming; impactful orator; keeps a watchful eye on results; makes many things possible through the hard work behind the scenes
Tanya Gulliver (Homeless HUB) – passionate advocate; informed critic; advancing knowledge; challenging assumptions; thought provoking
Ann Oliva (HUD) – intelligent; charismatic; presence; integrity; leaves her stamp on her contributions; is not afraid to provide a clear answer, even when it is unpopular
Kim Boudreaux (Catholic Services of Acadiana) – full of faith; passion; community impact; empowers her staff to achieve; never loses sight of the end users of services
Kim Walker (CSH) – smart; navigates pathways to success; moves thinking forward; challenges preconceptions respectfully; provides insightful ways to engage in thinking and doing; great example that leadership can occur earlier in a career
Mattie Lord (UMOM) – tenacious compassion; believes in setting the bar high; driven; does not sacrifice the important for the urgent; dedication to achieve the best results for families served; driven to do what is right
Kathy Christiansen (Alpha House Calgary) – lives her values; does what is pragmatic and that which is right; proves actions speak loudly; insightful commentary beyond the obvious day to day operations to situate what occurs within a bigger picture
There is loads of variation in the list. Some are in very high level positions with considerable exposure. Some are not. Some are lesbian. Some are not. Some have considerable academic credentials. Some do not. Some have children. Some do not. Some are married. Some are not. Some are younger and earlier on in careers; some are not. Some are white. Some are not. Some are Canadian. Some are not. I could go on.
They are not a singular, homogenous group. There is richness in the diversity that they represent. Each provides a different potential example for my children to learn from…for either my daughter to one-day embrace in her own leadership or my sons to support and respect and learn from in becoming leaders in their own right.
Who are the women leaders that work in the sector in your community, what are some of the qualities of their leadership, and what impact have they had on you?
“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.