The Policy Implications of Homelessness

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Cick here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

Digested First Pages:

Richard Farson

Welcome to our special conference on the policy implications of homelessness. We are fortunate to have as our leader Patricia Leslie, Director of the Social Work Program in the Department of Sociology and Social Work at Point Loma Nazarene University. Over the past twenty years she has had extensive experience with both private and public sector agencies, with a special emphasis on programs and services for homeless families and individuals. I have a special affinity toward her because she is a product of my alma mater, the University of Chicago. Welcome, Pat. We look forward to a most interesting conference.

This conference will have a WBSI volunteer staff member as facilitator, assisting Pat with any problems the participants may have with signing on (we expect a couple of guest participants) and in preparing weekly summaries or highlights to inform the general membership of the ILF in a plenary session for them, and, working with Pat, preparing a final report. I'm pleased to introduce Annie Coward, who, quite coincidentally believe it or not, recently graduated from Point Loma Nazarene University as a psychology major. So welcome, Annie.

Patricia Leslie’s Outline:

Opening Inquiry: Is homelessness a housing issue?

Intent: Explore homelessness from a variety of perspectives – on both macro and micro levels (social institutions and policies as well as individual dynamics and experiences).

Sample Perspectives: The complexities of homelessness (and indicators of potential solutions) framed as (for example)—

Patricia Leslie Good Afternoon! I appreciate your willingness to participate in the exploration.

At first blush the question of homelessness seems simple—people need housing. But is housing the solution? If it is, why would cities with high vacancy rates still have hundreds of people living in homelessness?

I look forward to a hearty discussion from many perspectives. Please join in.

Ralph Keyes In the current New Yorker Malcolm Gladwell argues that a small number of intractable homeless Americans cause a disproportionate amount of what we consider the "homeless problem." Although the vast majority of the homeless can be tended to with housing, he says, this small group needs not just a home but substantial help with other problems to avoid the greater expense of leaving them on the streets. What's your take on this, Patricia?

Douglass Carmichael "Is housing the solution?" What is the problem? People living in the open and all the problems that leads to. But that seems to me more like a symptom. But of what? I'm going to start at my conclusion and work backwards if the discussion seems to require it. This economy is like a crowded bus. There is no room for more to get on and there are no incentives to build buses for those who don't find a place. Even though we have people with needs and people without jobs, capitalism seems to fail at the entrepreneurial task of putting needs together with people willing to work but who do not have jobs. Because of this, society, organized around the economy, must find a way of distributing poverty, or nonparticipation. This is made worse because at the same time population is increasing those who have wealth and income are taking an increasingly large proportion of existing and new housing in an increasing number of square feet per person. Where I live, on the Russian River, outcasts and the disaffected could buy a house 30 years ago for $15,000, but today those houses cost $400,000 up. Homelessness from this point of view is a nearly unsolvable symptom of massive system failure. It is as if one can say "the economy is doing well but the people are doing badly." we really have the wealth in the U.S. for many more people to live well. Our distribution system for income and wealth is clearly skewed, and jobs with meaning and dignity, producing things of value, that would support that better life, are not being created. On the river, schools are firing teachers because school aged children are not showing up in the usual numbers. Where are they and their parents going? No one seems to know.

Patricia Leslie The question of the disproportionate use of resources by the relatively few "intractable" or sometimes labeled "chronic" population has been a part of the core message delivered by the Interagency Council on Homelessness in public presentations across the U.S.

One substantive problem is that the costs to address the underlying issues often fall on local resources that will not experience the "savings" created by the "avoidance of greater expenses" that you've appropriately referenced.

Often the result is that we can identify what needs to be done for individual homeless people but we cannot find the motivation to make the systemic investments that would be needed to solve the problem on a community level. "Customized, individualized solutions are expensive and tend to lack prevention..." It might be compared to the dynamics that helped to shift a highly individualized health care system to develop HMOs. There are savings and profits but the pockets in which they land differ.

I agree with Douglass Carmichael that we have some major system failures—and we may need to also take a hard look at our primary social institutions—like the family—education, religion.....

Richard Farson Many years ago I read an article by Peter Marin suggesting that some fraction of the homeless population are there by choice, and that it would be wrong to force them into some more conventional life...at least that's the way I remember Peter's point.

Simonne Ruff I echo Pat’s and Douglass' comments and think that homelessness is the manifestation of systems failing a broad range of people. Lack of affordable health care (physical and mental), the increasing cost of housing, and the precariousness of income become critical turning points when an individual or a family experiences crisis. The system does not adequately support people in a time of extreme need and there is often literally nowhere else for folks to turn but the streets. At any single point in time, the majority of the homeless is episodically or intermittently homeless, and find their way back into housing with the help of rental subsidies, support services, employment training, etc. The chronically homeless, however, remain on the streets (often visibly) month after month and year after year and need much more intensive supports to make a transition into permanent housing. While providers and localities work to address the diverse needs of the homeless in their communities, there is a greater need for a broad, integrated systems response to these issues. This integrated responds needs to recognize the impact of changes throughout the system—for example, the effect of national housing policies on mental health systems and vice versa.

Raymond Alden All that I know—or THINK I know—about homelessness is that it’s a very complex problem, not susceptible to major improvement from any single treatment. For example, greater availability of low-cost housing will certainly help, but after that becomes available there will still be homeless people, who are that way for different reasons.

I’m a bit skeptical about attributing the problem to one or more "system failures". Systems are designed, or simply grow, in order to deal with particular circumstances to the benefit of large numbers of people. If they accomplish that, they survive; otherwise, they disappear from center stage. A system that does NOT work well in some circumstances, or for some constituents, has not necessarily "failed". It may have been misapplied; or we may have relied upon it in situations where some other system would have worked better.

I believe strongly in a concept that I call "frames", by which I mean that most systems—be they economic, health care, education, military, social, or whatever—work quite well within a framework. Outside that framework they may NOT work well. That may mean that the system has failed; or it may mean that we should not have expected it to work well outside certain limits. It may need "tweaking" or even correcting. More likely we should be looking for a different system to use outside the natural frame of the first one.

As Douglass mentioned, our economic system has greatly increased the disparity between rich and poor. It’s a good example of a system that should be severely constrained at its extremes, without, if possible, lessening its effectiveness within some middle range—i.e., within the frame in which it works well. It is harsh to suggest that the system itself has failed; it would be foolish, on the other hand, to reject alternatives for dealing with extremes at either end on the grounds that doing so would be inconsistent with "holy writ" of some sort.

Patricia Leslie As Ray Alden has helped to remind me that framing or providing context for social interaction generally improves the accuracy / applicability of information. Systems have boundaries—and someone or something will lie outside that boundary.

Simonne suggests that part of the problem is that there is a wide range of people who are outside the boundary—the face of the homeless is broad. Able-bodied adults, single parents, intact families, and a growing number of youth have joined the historic portrait of the substance-abusing male.

A couple images haunt me from the discussion so far:

In Gladwell's article, Culhane and Mangano suggest that we can end homelessness—by focusing attention and resources on the chronic population. This has clearly been heard at the national policy level and Ten Year Plans to End Chronic Homelessness (PTECH)are blossoming in hundreds of cities. So what's the problem? As Doug Carmichael points out, a distribution of wealth that is functional for everyone is difficult—that's true for homeless resources as well. So if we concentrate on hardest cases—the chronic (by federal policy definition an unaccompanied, disabled adult)—will there be enough resources so that the "short-term" homeless people who are successful now have enough to still climb out? Or are we creating a new system with a different group who will be outside its bounds? If we have to limit the system, who should the design intend to have "inside"? It's the age-old question of effectiveness—give a little help to those who are most likely to make it, or a lot of help to those who clearly will not make it without significant help.

Gladwell is clear—Murray did well when someone was close by, monitoring him. Isn't that a core of the issue? People thrive when they have consistent relationships. Is helping Murray to get housed—which repeatedly became unhoused again—the key? Or, is it having someone who cares and is willing to be there regardless of your behavior? We know that relationships count—in many aspects of life—from human development to politics.

The other "haunt" –I wonder how many second or third graders would declare "homelessness" their future goal? Is that people want and choose to become homeless, or do people simply become adjusted and comfortable to being homeless?

Richard Farson A brief pause to give me a chance to introduce the guests to the ILF Fellows, and vice versa. I've already introduced our leader, Patricia and our facilitator Annie, so let me move first to the guests:

Kevin Modesto, a colleague of Patricia's is Assistant Professor of Social Work and Sociology at Point Loma Nazarene University, an ordained minister with fifteen years of work with children, youth, and families in various social service settings.

Robert Gardner is a professor of sociology at Loma Linda University with special interest in this subject and in qualitative research.

Simonne Ruff is a Program Manager at the Corporation for Supportive Housing. As Community Lead Researcher with the University of Toronto and Ryerson University, she compared the effectiveness of supportive housing with "regular" mainstream services in responding to the needs of vulnerable seniors (frail, mentally ill, homeless etc.). Her particular interest lies in exploring targeted case management models for supporting vulnerable individuals and families, particularly with mental illness, in their own homes and communities.

Thomas Fisher is dean of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at the University of Minnesota currently teaching a seminar on homelessness and conducting a research project studying best practices in major US cities.

And the ILF Fellows admitted to this task force:

Mary Catherine Bateson, Robinson Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at George Mason University, who has just completed a visiting professorship at Harvard.

Ray Alden, former president of Sprint

Ralph Keyes, author of 14 books, including We, the Lonely People, one of the first books to reveal the erosion of community.

Mary Boone, author, and president of her own organizational consulting business.

Eleanor Goldstein, founder of SIRS, Social Issues Research Service, and author of a number of books, especially well known for pioneering work in exposing false memory syndrome.

Hallock Hoffman, former Chairman, Pacifica Foundation and Fellow, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

Douglass Carmichael, psychoanalyst, consultant, and broad ranging intellectual.

So welcome to all of you.

Ralph Keyes To what extent is homelessness, especially involving intractable cases such as Murray, an artifact of closing mental institutions without community mental health centers to replace them?

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Cick here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

top