We throw the term homeless around without stopping to think about exactly what the word homeless means. The way we view the homeless issue, the policies we design to deal with the issue and the effectiveness of these policies in reducing homelessness and its related social ills is directly affected by the definition of homeless. Defining homeless incorrectly will disguise the cause of these social ills resulting in misdiagnoses, with the result that your course of treatment or action will have no effect, may in fact worsen or perpetuate these ills.
Let’s frame this in terms of something we all have experience with: the common cold. Colds are viruses but many people run to their doctors demanding antibiotics to “cure” them in the mistaken belief antibiotics will cure a cold. The antibiotics have no effect on the cold, but as we have learned to our grief using antibiotics in this way has led to the development of super bacteria which many of our overused medications no longer affect.
If we look at the common cold as to what its true nature is, a virus, we know that frequent washing of hands and an awareness of how viruses spread is effective in combating the common cold. Similarly we need to define or see homeless in a way that reveals its true nature before we can begin to “cure” it.
Stop and consider for a moment: what is meant by homeless and of far more significance what should be meant by homeless. The definitions below are from Webster’s dictionary. Unfortunately for both the homeless, who remain homeless, and the taxpayers, whose money is wasted in ineffectual manners, politicians and policy makers focus on or use “sleep in the streets, parks, etc.”
Homeless: adj. having no home; without a permanent place of residence.**
the homeless: those typically poor or sometimes mentally ill people who are unable to maintain a place to live and therefore often may sleep in the streets, parks, etc.
The result of this is programs and actions such as the current focus on outreach programs designed to get the homeless into housing. Get them a place to stay and you have success right? Wrong. Placing somebody into housing when they are “unable to maintain a place to live” is a pointless exercise. It gives the appearance of doing something and taking action but accomplishes nothing. The only real things this type of approach, getting someone into housing for a month or two before the true nature of their illness causes them to lose their temporary housing, achieves is to waste the resources expended while allowing the homeless to multiply.
The important parts or concepts in the above definitions are “without a permanent place of residence” and “unable to maintain a place to live”.
The first portion “without a permanent place of residence” allows us to better see and appreciate the scope and the progress of this social ill. In many ways the visibly homeless are the tip of an iceberg of homeless. With a fluid, moving population that is motivated to remain out-of-sight and out-of-mind of the authorities it is impossible to count this population with any accuracy. This is reflected in the recent assertions that the actual number of those without shelter is 4 – 5 times the “official” numbers. Before we get bogged down in a fruitless, since you will never be able to count the homeless accurately enough to determine the actual number of “outdoors” homeless, arguments let us consider an important and very large group most fail to consider in their definition of homeless.
This group would consist of those with a place of residence but whose place of residence is without permanence. There are several residential treatment facilities in the Abbotsford, BC area. Among these clients some will be returning to family, jobs, homes etc. However a significant portion of these people have no permanent place of residence to return to. Are they not effectively homeless? Once they are out of treatment they are on their own and on the streets.
Think about the growing population of those who have lost their jobs, cannot afford their rent and will in the near future be evicted. Or those who cannot afford to pay their debts will soon face foreclosure and being on the streets. Do not forget those with mental health or addictions issues that will soon see them on the street. Consider the plight of the working poor who even though employed full time cannot afford the sky-high cost of housing in the Lower Mainland. Are not all these groups of people effectively homeless?
The object of this thinking exercise is not to run up the homeless count as high as possible. Rather it is to frame the true extent of the problem facing us. The Homeless population is growing and in looking at homeless in its most broad terms we can see the potential for a tidal wave of homeless pouring onto the streets, swamping the system with the potential for crime, violence and an escalating crisis.
This looming social crisis with its inherent possibility of disaster demands that we take effective action to begin to reduce the homeless population. We can no longer afford the practice of continuing to repeat, over and over, policies and programs that have demonstrated they do not work in the hope that by some miracle they will work THIS TIME. That is an insane way to behave and while this is normal government behaviour we can no longer, as a society, allow government to practice this insanity. The cost, the potential for disastrous consequences, has become too high.
We need to look to and consider the second point that flows out of the definitions for direction in creating an approach and programs to avoid the potential disaster. The second “unable to maintain a place to live” points us at what it is, the virus as it were, that we need to focus our efforts to affect a “cure” on. Sticking them into housing over and over and over again will accomplish nothing unless we address what it is that renders them “unable to maintain a place to live”.
Our programs must therefore be designed to allow the homeless to make the changes they need to make in themselves in order to be able to maintain their housing on a permanent basis. We know that this population has problems and issues that render them “unable to maintain a place to live” such as addictions, mental health challenges, behaviour problems, personal issues etc. We need to acknowledge that these are not easy difficulties to deal with and frame our terms of reference in a realistic manner.
The most important, overriding feature is the need for a realistic view of the time and support that is required to accomplish what must be done in order for the homeless to bring about the personal changes they need to make in order that they will be able to “maintain a place to live”. Only once they are capable of functioning in a manner permitting them to have a home on a permanent basis will they cease to be homeless.
My personal experience with mental illness and pursuing mental health has taught me just how much time, effort and support is required in this change/journey. Unless we begin to design our programs to address the homeless based on the reality of the critical need to invest time and support to bring about the needed personal changes the numbers of homeless will only continue to grow and accelerate until they spiral out of control.
We like to claim to be an intelligent species. If we wish to remain masters of our own fate on issues such as the homeless we need to stop business as usual and start acting in an intelligent manner on this and other pressing social, environmental and economic issues.
