Learn. Grow. Implement.
Theory. Practice. Implementation.
These are the three key ingredients to knowing how to make change in operations in your approach to ending homelessness. Very recently, we announced the Learning Clinics in 2017. These are the next big step (risk?) we are taking at OrgCode to enhance the knowledge-base in ending homelessness, and help communities achieve sustained reductions in homelessness.
There are a number of different learning clinics throughout the first half of 2017. I want to take a few minutes to tell you why we are doing them, and to tell you about them, as well as how they are different from a typical conference or workshop.
Why?
We believe that our job is to be catalysts for better outcomes. We feel that many communities focus on the wrong things in ending homelessness either because of lack of knowledge or lack of leadership. We tackle leadership development in the Leadership Academy. We are now tackling knowledge acquisition. But not just any ol’ approach to knowledge. We are marrying theory to individual practice and organization or community wide implementation.
We believe that every community should invest in professional development of staff every year. We feel this way because it is our contention that we need to see this work as a professional service rather than a charitable approach to addressing homelessness.
We believe that people that are homeless in every community are best served by the best trained staff and organization. We feel that an organization/community owes it to the people they serve to ensure they are on top of the main currents of thought and practice, know how to make those practices happen, and are committed to making it work to improve homelessness.
We know that change sucks, and that while a person or organization may like the idea of changing, they rarely take the time to discern what they do not know, invest in getting the knowledge they need, and struggle to keep change happening when faced with challenges. We feel that if we help people group their approach in broader theory that change is more likely to be realized in practice and wide-scale implementation.
We believe in communities of practice. We feel that if we can bring people together from different communities and even different countries we can increase the size of your sounding board, give you more people to reach out to for help when you are implementing change, and enhance your network of like-minded professionals.
We know that conferences can do a great job of introducing you to a topic – usually over 90 minutes or so – but that it is impossible for a panel presentation or even one presenter in that time to give you all you need to know in order to practice what you have learned. We also know that webinars are great at getting information out, but are not intimate enough to allow for connection and ongoing change practice. We accept we can do better in providing information and improving practice.
The Clinic Topics
You can read a more fulsome description of the topics here and the first ones are open for registration here, here, here and here. Below is a quick synopsis of all of them:
Housing Stabilization (Ottawa Jan 9 & 10; Las Vegas Jan 26 & 27) – how to keep at least four out of five of your most acute households housed so that they do not come back into homelessness.
Coordinated Entry (San Diego Mar 2 & 3; Burlington, Ontario Mar 6 & 7) – even communities that have been trying to implement or have implemented within the last two years will likely find the refinements of practice outlined in this learning clinic to be exceptionally important.
How to be an Awesome Shelter (Edmonton Mar 20 & 21; Dallas Mar 23 & 24) – what it takes to make your shelter completely housing focused and change all practices to be trauma-informed
Being a Kick Butt Community Entity (Continuum of Care, Community Based Organization or Service Provider) (Providence Apr 10 & 11) – the best approaches to guide, lead and manage the body that influences how your community invests in and responds to homelessness
Rural Homelessness Solutions (Minneapolis May 8 & 9) – everything you needed to know to focus on amazing service delivery when engaging with people in rural and even remote geographic areas
Street Outreach to Housing (Nashville May 11 & 12; Saskatoon May 15 & 16) – how to make sure all engagement is focused on housing, and the connection to coordinated entry and housing stability when people are street involved
Making Your HMIS Super Awesome & Using Your Performance Data (Pittsburgh June 5 & 6; Denver June 8 & 9) – the alternate title for this session is “Un-f*cking Your HMIS” if that helps you figure out what this session will focus on.
For many of the sessions (Housing Stabilization, Coordinated Entry, and How to Be an Awesome Shelter) we are offering three separate tracks: one for families, one for unaccompanied youth, and one for single adults. These will occur at the same venue. Plenary will be shared and instruction will be with like-service organizations/staff.
How These Differ From Other Conferences or Workshops
We, as you may know, are HUGE fans of conferences. We attend a lot of them. We are honoured when given the chance to keynote or do session presentations. We find them to be highly effective at communicating key messaging and helping to outline the key aspects of some important aspects of homeless service delivery.
What conferences are not awesome at (nor are they designed to do) is to give very detailed instruction on any particular topic of interest in ending homelessness. Each of the Learning Clinics we are delivering are either 1.5 or 2 full day sessions (depends on the subject). These are a much deeper dive into the subjects.
We are also working to own the things we (OrgCode) does well and focus on those things. We happen to think there are other organizations that are remarkably stellar at training on some other stuff (like the National Alliance to End Homelessness work on Rapid ReHousing, T3’s work on Motivational Interviewing, and Focus Strategies work on data analysis – to name a few). We are not out to compete with any of these organizations or their strengths. We are here to bring our expertise to a different audience in a different manner.
In addition, we are working and communicating with a range of colleagues in different organizations and government to ensure our content is aligned to policy, other initiatives afoot, and changes in the pipeline. You already know we are decently connected to what is happening in the bigger picture. You can expect that to be anchored into our material delivery.
We would be honoured if you would make the investment to join your colleagues in improving service, learn all you need to take the information back to your community and put it into practice, and help improve your efforts to end homelessness.
Crazy Sh!t, Volume 3, 2016
Time for everyone’s favourite blog – the crazy shit from July, August and September.
$1.8M vs $4.3M
Let me get this straight, the motel operator, who is in his late 70s, wants to sell you all of his properties for $1.8M (way below market value because he believes you are doing the Lord’s work) so you can continue to use them to help homeless families where you have given the operator $4.3M in fees over the past three years, but it does not make financial sense? (Even if one of the properties is RIGHT ON THE OCEAN and a recent building audit for the entire portfolio of properties showed the buildings to be in REMARKABLE SHAPE!!!)
“I would like to speak with your boss. Does he know the things you say when presenting?”
How to handle this delicately….yes, I know the things he says because I am the boss – though I dislike that title.
“In your speech this morning you cited Census data, SAMSHA data, data from your government, HUD data, and at least seven different academic papers. This is what makes your conclusions so remarkably bad – none of these are direct service providers. None of these see the reality of homelessness every single day. Those of us on the frontline know that the reality is way different than any study every published by anyone.”
And that, folks, is a great example of what happens time and time again if you try to persuade people with data and evidence. Part of it is operational bias. Part of it is cognitive dissonance. All of it is a compelling example of why putting proof of alternatives to current service models can be more important than just talking about the alternatives. In my defence, this was a reaction to things I said at a keynote – which was not the right venue for me to explain how to make things operational in great detail.
“I read with interest your tweet about the upcoming OrgCode Learning Clinics. We are a small group of concerned citizens working to improve homeless services in the Pacific Northwest. We are unable to attend any of the Learning Clinics (no budget for travel or conference attendance), but we are hoping you would consider sending us all of the material so we can use it to educate services, government, and the general public in Seattle and the surrounding area. As you may know, we have plenty of issues up here, especially with tent cities. What you are teaching could have the answers we have been looking for.”
I think it is admirable that a group has banded together to try and improve homeless services. But I am astounded that would think we would just turn over all of the materials from the newly announced Learning Clinics to help out.
“You could have just said, ‘no thanks’ instead of lying you are that busy.”
This came to me in an email when I said the next open dates I have in my schedule is January. I wasn’t lying. Apparently, though, they took offence and thought I was brushing them off. Then when I had two postponed events and got back in touch with them they indicated they did not want to “play games”. Sigh.
“That’s your opinion.”
Nope. As it turns out, those are the facts. People are allowed to have their own opinions. They are not allowed to have their own facts. So, if I have facts and you have opinions, I will. If that pisses you off and you want to complain to the VA? So be it. Though I do hope, woman in Florida, that a better organization serves people in your county.
“HUD is out to take away our transitional housing in the same way Hillary is out to take away our guns.”
This is what makes places like Texas fun to do work within. If by “fun” I meant “frustrating as f*ck”.
“How do I get people to stop forwarding me your blogs? About once per month at least a half dozen people want me to read what you wrote in your blog. I am sick of it. I do not like you or what your business stands for.”
Turns out the blog on day services was the last straw for this Rescue Mission in the Southwest. Turns out, though, I have no control what people want to forward to him in his community. Oh well.
“Businesses in our downtown are thinking of blaring music every night to make sure people cannot sleep in their doorways. They want me to ask you if Metallica or Mariah Carey would be better. Any studies on which are better for keeping people away – metal or pop music?”
I refuse to participate in non-sleeping playlists.
“I am writing you today hoping this question does not put me in the Crazy Shit blog. Keep in mind I am asking for my boss. She wants to convert one of our transitional housing programs. She wants it to be abstinence-based and require that people can prove three months of employment prior to entry. She is not against having people with a mental illness live there, but wants them to prove they take medications. How can you spin this so it falls within ‘Housing First’ and make sure we get points from our CoC in our application if we go this way? We were thinking of calling it Site Based Recovery Oriented Rapid ReHousing. Thoughts?”
Um – WTF is wrong with your boss? That is like looking at a Toyota Camry and convincing yourself it is a Porshe.
“How many more jobs do you have to take away from Americans until you are satisfied?
This question came from a US-based TA provider. Well, we don’t look for work. It looks for us. Oh, and people with OrgCode are a combination of Americans and Canadians. Also, I was unaware that Americans had a stranglehold on all ideas related to ending homelessness.
“Can you settle an argument between my brother and I? I say you must have been in a rock band. He believes you were probably a jazz musician or pop musician masquerading as a rock guy.”
Seriously? Your organization turned away more than 1,000 people from services last year and the reason you email me is to settle an argument with your brother about my previous musicianship? Whatever. It was rock. Now get back to work.
A Bias Towards Longevity
One of the weirdest things about homelessness is that the longer you are homeless, the better you are at being homeless. And many services – government, not for profit, faith-based, etc. – feed into this bias. They are generally difficult to navigate unless you have been in the system for a long time.
It seems once or twice every year (at least) some organization has an intern pulling together a guide of services for people that are homeless. It takes them months. And it may have value to the intern if they are staying in the field or are trying to figure out the array of services that exist for people that are homeless.
Want a more efficient way to do it?
Give five chronically homeless dudes a pizza and an hour and they can write out the whole thing for you. Heck, they can likely rank order each shelter, feeding program, day service, outreach program, etc. based upon their perceptions of their awesomeness. (“This shelter is three bunks out of five.”, “The breakfast program at St. Mildred’s is a solid five spoons out of five.”, “The lasagne dinner at the temple the last Wednesday of the month is two volunteer happy faces out of five.” Etc.)
How did we get to a place where there is a bias to longevity?
Much of it has to do with false promises and waiting lists. Most of the people that experience homelessness for long periods of time have been promised many things over the years that have not panned out the way initially promised. Or, the offer of service resulted in being put on a waiting list, not on actually providing service.
Waiting lists are a game of Survivor – outwit, outplay, and outlast and you too may get the pot of gold at the end of the waiting list rainbow. Meanwhile, an entire bureaucratic system has been put in place to manage the waiting list and the data associated with it. There are now staff whose sole function is to do nothing other than manage more names being added to a list.
Perhaps this is a large dollop of pessimism that is making you feel uncomfortable. That discomfort may work to our advantage of solving the problems in front of us. Imagine if we all felt a sense of urgency to appropriately prioritize and serve those with the longest homelessness and deepest needs first? Imagine if we decide to tear up our waiting lists and focus on priority lists. Consider what would happen if we could have the fortitude to distinguish between being eligibility for a service and needing a service. Furthermore, what would it be like if you/your system no longer had people with lower needs consume resources that should be reserved exclusively for those with the deepest needs?
Passive to Active: The Role of Day Services
Historically, day services of all kinds (known by names like drop-in centres, day centres, day shelters, resource lounges, open spaces, gathering spots, and so on) played the very important function of giving people that are homeless refuge during the day. This has been especially important in neighbourhoods or communities where shelters are open over night, but lack resources to stay open and serve people during the day. The day services have met a huge array of needs. Often they provide a meal or snack. In the winter they give escape from inclement weather and in the summer a respite from the heat. Bathrooms are almost always available. Many have showers or laundry facilities. It is not uncommon for there to be socio-recreational activities, and/or opportunities for people to mingle and engage. Some bring in external resources like health care, legal services, or even help filing taxes or applying for benefits.
In response to need (real or perceived) many day services have become specialized for population groups over the years, especially in larger urban centres. For example, you might find a day service specifically for unaccompanied youth, another one just for women, one for mental health consumers, another for older adults, one for people that identify as LGBTQ, and another for people that are Aboriginal. Each of these embraces a mandate relative to the population served and designs programming and staffing models accordingly.
Too often it is a passive space, even with staff and programming.
Too often it addresses symptoms of homelessness and being underused rather than solving why any person or family would need a day service in the first place.
Too often they are facilities where a person that is homeless needs to make their needs known to staff rather than staff assessing and meeting needs.
What if we re-thought day services within a continuum of support services focused on ending homelessness? What if we re-designed programming and expectations of day services to be places of active engagement focused on the quality of service and termination of the person’s houselessness, and less about the quantity of people that pass through the doors of the facility? What if we made every single one as low-barrier as possible to increase the likelihood of people using the service to have their needs met? What then?
In the northeast there is a group of advocates lobbying a mayor to have a neutral day centre space for people to have passive respite. In Texas there is a group of business people wanting a day centre to get people off the streets and in front of their stores, and into a place where they are served and not seen. In the midwest there is a judge wanting to see a day centre put into place to divert people out of his courtroom. On the west coast there is strain and desire on various political officials and faith-groups to expand and provide more funding to day services to meet the hygiene and food needs of people staying in tent cities.
All of this is meaningless and will not do a darn thing to end homelessness.
Meanwhile there are thousands of other day services in the world that see the same clientele every single day, more or less. They have the same patrons, volunteers and staff; the same menu; the same issues with their built form; the same neighbourhood issues. They will tell anecdotes of increased demands on services and the increased complexity of their client base (which is usually related to whatever street drug is making rounds in that town or whichever mental health facility is restricting access or whichever hospital is discharging people to the streets or whichever foot patrol by the cops is pushing people into their facility).
All of this is meaningless and will not do a darn thing to end homelessness.
Consider this:
As published in the American Journal of Consumer Community Psychology, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, 305-317, in an article titled Preference Programs for Individuals Who Are Homeless and Have Psychiatric Disabilities: A Drop-In Center and a Supported Housing Program by Shinn et al, the drop in center without barriers was more successful than control programs in reducing homelessness, but after 2 years only 38% of participants had moved into housing. Meanwhile, the Housing First program had 79% in housing. Conclusion? A low barrier shelter is insufficient to increase housing access or reduce homelessness. It must be low barrier AND actively focused on housing.
In the five day service re-designs with housing focus we have been involved in the last three years, the least successful has seen more than 40% increase in housing access and retention out of the day service within six months. Achieved how? All staffing and activities are singularly focused on housing, the service is used exclusively for people that are homeless, all of the ancillary activities that used to occur within the facility are now delivered in vivo, and the work is integrated with other sheltering and outreach services.
We know of three communities (one Canadian and two American) that have greatly reduced or closed all of their day services that were passive, and in none of those communities has there been an increase in homelessness or deaths.
If we are serious about ending homelessness in every community then we need to make sure each part of the service delivery system is aligned to this aim. It is not just the job of street outreach or shelters. It is not just the job of coordinated entry. You cannot just have specialized housing workers that move around and try to house everyone out of homelessness. You must ensure every place where a person that is homeless is “touched” is locked onto ending homelessness. If we are passive then we become complicit in the increase of homelessness, the management of homelessness, and even the deaths of people that are experiencing homelessness.
Characteristics of an Exemplary Diversion Specialist
In training communities on effective diversion, a common question is, “What are the sort of characteristics you’d look for when hiring someone for that position?” It is a great question because it appreciates that the role is somewhat different from other roles that serve people experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of losing housing. Here are some thoughts.
They should be an extraordinary problem solver who is remarkably resourceful rather than whining about a lack of resources.
Being solution-focused means the individual will work the problem to find a solution rather than waiting for someone else to find a resource or fix a system that is broken. I like to think of good Diversion Specialists as the Macgyver’s of the homeless and housing service delivery system – they find a way to make it work with what they have, even when it is not ideal.
They need to think before reacting to what is presented.
A good Diversion Specialist puts themselves on a short delay. The client says something. They take a pause, sometimes counting in their head, before responding. This avoids unnecessary conflict, feelings of interrogation, and the rapid exchange that can interfere with remaining objective.
They must remain objective and fair.
A good Diversion Specialist sees forests and trees. They see the needs of the household in front of them while also thinking of all households in similar circumstance. They see the household’s needs for resources in the context of all resources available. They are not going to circumvent the process, nor are they going to make exceptions. They build trustworthiness through the transparency of what they do.
They must focus on the problem/issues, not the emotions.
Jokingly I have remarked that the best Diversion Specialists are the ones that have no heart. Yes, a Diversion Specialist should have compassion. But then need to separate the sometimes overwhelming emotional context that the household finds themselves in from the problems that led the household to seek service in the first place. Otherwise the Specialist can cater the response to the emotional outburst instead of dealing with the real issue(s).
They must exercise direct communication and active listening.
No sugar coating or misleading referrals are found emanating from the lips of a good Diversion Specialist. They focus on facts rather than opinion or advice. They call it as it is after making sure they have understood the situation as presented.
They must focus on the future, not the past.
Nobody has a time machine – Diversion Specialists included. A good Specialist knows they cannot rewind life to prevent a particular situation or mishap from occurring. As such, they need to see exactly where things are at in the present to work with the household to prepare a course of action for the future. And when the household seems fixated on past events, they work hard to get them to focus not on “what happened” but instead on “what’s next?”.
They must have unwavering integrity of process and remain impartial to all parties that may be trying to influence the situation.
A good Diversion Specialist is supported by the system and established processes as a whole. There are no special favours for politicians or friends in other organizations or their pastor, etc. While others may try to advocate for particular favour for their household, the best Diversion Specialists ensure there are no side doors or special treatment.
They must have impeccable personal boundaries.
Whatever is happening in the life of the client, a good Diversion Specialist will know how to separate that professionally from their own life and experience so that emotions and resources on a personal level do not interfere in the process. More than once I have encountered Diversion Staff that feel sympathy instead of empathy in particular situations, only to then watch personal boundaries crumble.
They must embrace and empower self-determination.
A good Diversion Specialist works with the household seeking assistance. They do not do things to the household nor do they do things for the household. A good Diversion Specialist knows how to transparently present options for consideration by the household and empowers that household to resolve their own situation to the best of their ability, progressively engaging only when the household has demonstrated an inability to effectively engage with the resources and options provided.
They must steadfastly distinguish between want and need.
A good Diversion Specialist uses the lightest touch possible after understanding the true needs of the household. This is critical given the household can, quite honestly, approach services feeling a sense of entitlement, or wanting what their friends have received, or even getting what they were given in a previous encounter with the system. A good Diversion Specialist focuses on needs, not wants.
Change Yourself Into Something You Love
I believe in hope. I believe that we are malleable. I know so much of our time is spent thinking somehow our bodies are changeable, but our thoughts, opinions and beliefs are not. I know that if we believe the future can be different and better than the present, we can take the steps now that allow for improvement.
Changing yourself is not just about you as one person. Changing yourself also means changing your organization, your interpersonal relationships, your peers.
Learning to love myself has been over two decades in the making. I spent long periods of my life trying to be what people wanted me to be rather than being who I wanted to be. I spent endless hours critiquing just about everything about myself…my intellect, my career choices, my image, my friendships and relationships with my family, my morality, my view on social norms – and so on. Extreme self-loathing coupled with depression brought me close to the edge more than once.
My journey to wellness is anchored in the idea of changing myself into something I love. Love does not mean absence of flaws. Love does not mean perfection. Love does not mean permanent happiness. Love is authentic acceptance.
Lessons I have learned that I want to share:
If you want to love yourself, surround yourself with people that love your faults, not love you in spite of them. Loving yourself does not mean being imperfect.
Grieve the loss of the old you when you start to change. That is who you were, not who you are or are going to become.
Forgive yourself for being imperfect.
Name the changes you want to see in yourself, to yourself. Hold yourself accountable to a timeline to make movements on those choices.
You can change yourself into something you love. It does not happen overnight. And coming to love yourself often means stretches of being unhappy. Paradoxical, but true.
Only you can change yourself into something you love. No one else will do that for you. No one else knows how to make you the person you love.
Avoid arrogance and conceit. Loving yourself requires being vulnerable and open. It does not mean you are the best at anything or everything.
Be sensitive to the critiques of others. I have learned that much of what frustrates me in others are things that I know or once knew to be true in who I am – even if they way they were manifest was different.
We are all afraid of rejection. Don’t be surprised if you reject yourself too. Then deliberately – even when painful – accept yourself.
Regardless of life circumstance, traumatic events, history, we all have the ability to recover – if we allow ourselves to regain control and find meaning to what has happened. This is not always a journey completed alone. But one of the ways in which changing yourself into something you love is helpful, is the ability to find new meaning in who you are, your resiliencies, and your remarkable ability to adapt.
Changing yourself into something you love means confronting some of the harm you have done to others in the past and learning when and how to ask for forgiveness. Loving myself, I have quipped, means accepting that I am a recovering asshole.
Don’t apologize for your world view. Don’t apologize for your values and beliefs. Don’t apologize for your morals. Loving yourself is an unapologetic exercise in being who you are and need to be, not subscribing to what others try to tell you to be.