Your Best Intentions of Promoting Your Work May Be Having Devastating Long-Term Consequences on Some of Your Service Users

People served by your programs may be eager to tell the world how amazing you are or enthusiastically proclaim the awesomeness of your organization.

If you ask, they will be in agreement to have their story and experience focused on your website. If you ask, they will be profiled in your Annual Report. If you ask, they will come and talk at your Annual General Meeting. If you ask, they will speak to media. If you ask, they will come and share at fundraising events. If you ask, they will agree that guests from out of town or other organizations that are visiting your program can come and visit them too.

Let’s break this down a bit, though, and really analyze what is going on.

First of all, which type of person/family does your organization choose for these moments? It isn’t the person that was not served well by your program. It likely isn’t the person that did mediocre after being served by your program. You pick the superstar – the person/family that did unbelievably well, so much so that it is outside the norm. That “superstar” presents well and you would be happy to have them as the face of your programs. Problem is, you are presenting a false image. You are presenting the exception.

Related to this, you are often setting up a sample size of one or the sample size of a few. Politicians often do this:

“I met Jimmy on my way here today and he told me how the NewDawn Community Services provided him the skills to be good at financial management for the rest of his life. Now he has a job and manages his income without any help from others. We need to help other people become just like Jimmy and fund more programs like NewDawn Community Services.”

Is Jimmy’s experience typical? People confuse anecdotes like this with data. For all we know, Jimmy experienced success because of his own skills and attributes, completely independent of anything NewDawn did. We just don’t know. Understanding the effectiveness of any program is not determined by the one exception or only by one story.

Secondly, why would a person be eager to be profiled? They may want to share their story with peers and provide an example to others. Let’s, however, consider the alternative, though, which I have heard many, many times: they feel they owe you (your organization or a specific worker) for all that they have done for them. In other words, they feel they are reciprocating. The reciprocation mindset can have poor long-term impacts on people. They are not, therefore, doing it for themselves – they are doing it as payback.

When someone engages out of obligation or payback, they may not have been in a place where they are emotionally or psychologically ready to share. Perhaps, like me, you have seen these people break down into tears as they regale others with their life story and relive the sorry of the experience. Perhaps, like me, you may have seen these folks do well during an event like a promotion video for your website, and then a few months later they return to homelessness and feel even worse shame because they were held up in front of others with such high expectations. (I have been guilty of the latter and it haunts me to this day.)

Every time you bring someone out into a forum such as an Annual General Meeting, Fundraising Event, media event, etc. you create an environment where they can relive their trauma and experience of homelessness or the surrounding issues of her/his homelessness. You are not letting them recover from the experience if you bring them back into the experience. If your programs are intended to help people achieve greater independence and stability into community, then it is foolish and disingenuous to bring someone back to your organization for your own purposes that contradict your program’s intention.

“We help people achieve independence in their life and reintegrate into community.”

Follow that with trotting people back to your program to speak at events or to media and they are not reintegrating into community or achieving the fullness of independence? Instead of doing what you claimed to do, you are making them beholden to you.

Your organization probably claims to be trauma-informed. You likely claim to be person-centered. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear you say you provide services in a non-judgmental manner. And yet you potentially contradict all of that by asking service participants to have their story profiled or come and speak. There is nothing trauma-informed about creating an environment that is non-therapeutic for people to share their traumatic story – especially without intensive supports and preparation first. There is nothing person-centered about an approach that is really organization-centered or system-centered because you are trying to profile the work of your organization, not the achievements, per se, of all the persons supported by your organization. When you have the person’s story out in the public realm, you are asking people to judge them as successful and to deem your programs to be a success.

Want people to recover from homelessness? Let them work on recovery in housing. People want to share their story or give back? Make sure they have been supported through proper peer-support training, preparation and debriefing first, as well as after. And even then, create a forum where service participants have an equal opportunity to share her/his story, not the select few asked by your organization to come out and be involved.

Want to still provide a human face to your work and your organization’s accomplishments? Provide an opportunity for everyone to have their picture taken and present those photos in the likes of a collage, not just individuals. Tell real stories in your reports using stock photos, changing names, and even presenting cases as an amalgam, not an individual story. Put these accounts of success in context of the data of all people served so the audience can decide for herself how representative the story is of all people served. If you are going to engage people with media, while not recommended, it can be better if people are briefed before and when there is someone with extensive media training in the interview that can tell the reporter that certain questions are out of bounds or reminding the service participant they are not required to answer anything. Instead of having someone tell their story live in front of a room full of people at a fundraising event or Annual General Meeting, consider having a short play performed that weaves together the stories of various people served by the organization. Or consider a video montage of many different people that have been housed with many stories coming together and showing a broad range of experiences.

You don’t intend to harm your service participants further. Let them move forward in their life as a housed person. Stop bringing them back to tell their story of homelessness.

The Homeless Service System Was Never Intended to Solve All Housing Problems

The homeless service delivery system in your community was never intended to solve ALL housing problems.

It is NOT the low-income housing system.

If the homeless service system tries to take care of affordable housing needs of low-income persons at the same time as addressing the housing needs of homeless persons, it is too much to handle. Prioritization of resources becomes difficult, if not impossible. Preference is likely to be given to those where their “only issue” is seen as their poverty. Waiting lists will become so large they will become meaningless and result in absolutely no meaningful action. Uproar and dissatisfaction will continue with the state of homelessness. The rate of economic poverty is always greater than the rate of homelessness, therefore homeless people are at a chronic disadvantage in this type of design.

It is NOT the seniors housing system.

If the homeless service system tries to take care of the housing needs of an ageing population – low or moderate income – at the same time as it takes care of homelessness, then expect homelessness to grow. I can’t think of one community that wouldn’t prefer to take care of the housing needs that remind them of their parents over the housing needs of people that do not resemble the majority of people they know in their life (homeless people). Politically, housing seniors is a win while housing homeless people is a loss. A prevalent argument is that society owns its oldest citizens for their contributions to our current life and welfare. What do homeless people owe us? They would argue nothing – or at least less.

There’s more.

Homeless service systems were never designed to take care of all of the housing needs of ex-offenders or persons discharged from hospitals or mental health facilities. Nor was the homeless service system ever designed to be the housing answer for youth ageing out of care.

But it continues to be.

First of all, we need to stop creating new fancy programs – at the expense of other homeless programs – to take care of shortcomings of other systems and start holding those other systems more accountable.

We need to rail against the injustice of a “justice” system that penalizes people even more with homelessness upon release unless that system is willing to provide resources to address the homelessness it creates. Otherwise it punishes not just the person that violated the law, but homeless service providers as well.

We need to make sure that people who become homeless as a result of longer stays in hospital or psychiatric facilities are not put onto the doorstep of homeless service providers to address. There is no reason why there cannot be further integration upstream between discharge planners and homeless service providers. Discharge planners can play a critical role in solving homelessness at the point of discharge.

We need youth services to stop making the graduation to adulthood a stepping-stone into homelessness where the homeless service delivery system is burdened with the cost and service demands..

It must be noted that some systems are doing a great job to take care of their responsibility. For example, across America the VA is investing in programs at a level suitable for ending homelessness amongst veterans, more or less. On the “more” side of the equation, there is money, a strong sense of prioritization, and a mission driving towards sustained change. On the “less” side, it has to be acknowledged that persons dishonourably discharged from service are not afforded the same opportunities to access resources for veterans, and it falls upon the “regular” homeless service delivery system to address these needs.

There is a strong focus on ending homelessness nowadays. This is a great thing as we shift from managing homelessness to ending homelessness. But we will never get there if we keep thinking the homeless service delivery system is responsible for addressing all of the housing needs of every person in community, or every shortcoming or creation of homelessness in other systems.

Marginalization and Homelessness

Most often, people experiencing homelessness – whether they be individuals or families – experience marginalization.

Where does this marginalization come from? It stems from a power differential between those that have housing and those that do not. Marginalization in this instance is the profound difference that exists across multiple aspects of life between those that have stable housing and those that do not. For example, those with housing are more likely to live longer, have better health, achieve better quality of life, feel more connected to others, achieve better education outcomes (comparing children in homeless families compared to housed families), etc.

One of the issues with marginalization is that we often see it as a result of the fault of an individual. It is not. A person having an addiction does not make that person a problem; addiction is the problem. A person experiencing unemployment is does not make that person a problem; unemployment is the problem. A person experiencing compromised mental wellness such as living with schizophrenia does not make that person a problem; mental health is the problem.

If our services and our supports are truly person-centered in our approach, we will find the strengths that exist in each person and look beyond labels. Services are then individually catered so that the person (family) informs the type, frequency, duration and intensity of services best suited to their specific needs. Options and choices so that informed decision-making can occur by the person experiencing marginalization becomes empowering – especially if we accept that mistakes will be made and it is not our job to prevent mistakes from occurring.

If our services and supports are more system-centered than person-centered in our approach, we will find a way to try and manage risk to programs, people and the community at large in the ways we determine who gets services and who does not. Quite often, a system-centered approach is implicitly social control – reinforcing expectations of how people should act, what is right and wrong, societal norms in a range of situations, what is taboo and what is acceptable, etc. A system approach places extreme limits on person decision-making and is generally intolerant of people making mistakes.

A person-centered approach helps people move beyond homelessness in a way that decreases or even allows for recovery from marginalization. A system-centered approach reinforces marginalization, especially if mistakes become punitive and result in longer homelessness or more marginalization.

If your approach to supports and services to people experiencing homelessness reinforces marginalization, dominance of service providers over the people it services, or subjects or exploits persons accessing services (up to and including using “graduates” to tell others how fabulous your programs were/are) then maybe it is time for a re-think of whether or not we truly want to support a structure were people are less peripheralized and more empowered.

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?