Monthly Archives: February 2008

Homeless, Provincial

One size does not fit all.

Leave a comment

BC Housing is in the process of forcing the Emergency Shelter in Abbotsford to switch to a 24/7 (hours/days) schedule and adopt operational policies dictated by BC Housing.

This change will have negative consequences not only on the shelter operations but upon all other programs offered at the Centre of Hope.

Why should Abbotsford be concerned? The homeless are part of our community and actions that have negative consequences upon them will in turn have negative effects upon the community as a whole.

The concern is not that BC Housing has come up with a new homeless program to be implemented through the shelters in BC, but rather that it is being imposed on all shelters without considering if the new policies are appropriate for a given shelter and/or location. They are forcing even shelters not wanting to run on the 24/7 basis, for good sound reasons, to run 24/7 – or they will not get any funding. Either the Emergency Shelter runs under their program or Abbotsford loses its shelter funding.

Since the new policy comes with increased funding, one would think that BC Housing would recognize that there must be serious concerns about the negative effects on some of the shelters for them to seek to not receive more money. Unfortunately BC Housing has not shown any evidence that they are interested in whether there are good reasons to not change shelter operations. Rather they are blindly forcing all shelters to change, ignoring that “one size fits all” policies often have very negative consequences for those of odd size.

For communities with multiple shelters, for larger shelters and shelters with separate entrances the new policy is doable.

The emergency shelter is the only shelter in Abbotsford/Mission, it is small – actually totally inadequate in size for the increasing demand for shelter space and it shares the entrance path with the majority of other programs. In fact the shelter space is used during the day for other programs.

I want to be very clear that the concern is not with the new shelter policy itself, but that due to the size and location of Abbotsford’s emergency shelter implementing it will have negative results that will far outweigh any benefits, causing a great deal of damage and hardship to the people the policy is suppose to help.

The concept behind the new policy is good. What is lacking for the new shelter policy to be solidly successful, is the other programs needed to follow upon and provide support for the homeless to transition out of the shelter system and into more (and increasingly) stable housing. The government has put up a doorframe and door as an entrance point but they have failed to build the rest of the structure needed to provide a home to the homeless. But that is an argument for another time.

As stated I like the concept behind the new shelter policy initiative. However I think that the specific physical reality of the Abbotsford emergency shelter makes it totally unsuitable to running 24/7. Forcing the shelter to run under the new 24/7 rules will have many negative consequences far outweighing any possible benefits.

Addressing homelessness requires participation by the community. In this case what is needed is for members of the community of Abbotsford to contact our local MLA’s Mike de Jong (mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca), John van Dongen (john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca) Minister Rich Coleman (rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca) and Premier Gordon Campbell (gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca) asking for their help in getting BC Housing to continue to fund the emergency shelter under its current operations rather than forcing a change with negative outcomes upon the shelter.

It would not hurt to ask them to see if there are any other shelters that will be or are being negatively impacted by being forced to adopt new operational behaviours and policies.

Addiction, Homeless

Asking in order to evaluate or creat recovery based programs

Leave a comment

When I was looking to find a new mechanic I asked 4 or 5 people for their recommendations. It turned out there was one garage they all recommended and that was where I went. It has proved a very good choice and when asked about where I go to have my auto cared for I do not hesitate to recommend them myself.

When I wanted to know about mechanics I asked those who used them; for who better to make judgments about the capability of the mechanics? An intelligent approach that is applicable to evaluate effectiveness in a variety of applications and circumstances.

Why is then, that the government does not ask for the input of those who use the programs and services?

This question came to mind recently as I offered to write (and wrote) a letter to those involved in making the decision about continuing funding to a mental health program. I wrote in the context of someone who had been a client of the program and knew how important the program was in my continuing journey of recovery.

This is an important point because it is my experience that a substantial barrier to recovery is that often those making the funding decisions and judging the programs do not seek the opinions or input of the people in the best position to judge program efficacy – those using the programs in their personal recovery.

This is of particular importance with programs such as this one where the most important, and to often overlooked or not appreciated, benefits to the clients are not easily or at all quantifiable. This is an employment oriented program but my experience, and that of other clients (users) of the program, was that the support offered to people by the program was far more important and useful in recovery than the “job” side was.

It is easy to come up with numbers for the “job” side of the program, but how do you quantify the support provided by the program? And yet … my personal experience and observation is that without support recovery is not possible and that lack of support leads to relapse. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that had I not been fortunate enough to find the program I would not have made the progress I have.

The program provided support at a time when I was most vulnerable and in need of support. I wrote in support of the program to ensure that those in need of support would be able to find the support to find their path to recovery.

Yet it is only by asking those such as me that someone evaluating the program would be aware of this aspect of the program and how important it is.

Asking also needs to apply in awarding contracts to provide services. I have seen and experienced, on several different occasions, the fallout of the current process the government uses for awarding contracts. And while in some cases the contract needed to be awarded elsewhere, in others it turned a useful resource/program into something that was of benefit only to those awarded the contract.

Auditors general have a term of reference involving “value for money”, as in are we getting our monies worth? That is the question that should be poised when making contract awards. And you make that judgment by asking the people who use the programs and services. I mean ask directly. I have been involved with programs where client feedback was part of the program, through the contractor. Fox guarding the henhouse.

This concept of asking clients or users what they think is also needed in establishing new programs. It is through experience that one learns what the real needs are, which are often different from what would appear to be or theoretically be the needs.

It is easy to “sell” the concept of an employment program, much harder to convince someone that a program offering support is truly needed if those needing this support are to every have an opportunity to be employed. Yet support is a fundament or key concept in recovery.

It is a major frustration that so many politicians, experts and others “know” what needs to be done for a variety of problems that require some form of recovery, without ever asking the people who need and or are seeking recovery. This “knowledge” leads to programs that are pointless, that fail to provide what is truly needed for recovery, that fail to provide what is their stated purpose to provide and waste millions of taxpayer $$$.

Yes we need ideas from as wide a source as possible, for having lots of ideas is the best way to ensure having good ideas. But to evaluate what is a good idea, what is needed, what programs are effective or which providers do an excellent job we need to ask and listen to those who need and /or use the programs.

If our goal is to provide the programs and services needed for people to move into and follow the path to recovery we need to be sure that we ask those whose life experience has provided them with understanding and insight into recovery and what is needed for recovery for their input. Then listen and pay attention to what those in recovery or in need of recovery say, and be willing to act on their input.

Homelessness, mental illness, addiction, poverty are all issues we face, but can address if we so choose. Part of that choice is choosing to ask for input and listen to the answers – even if they are answers we did not expect or want to hear.

Consider

Grant’s Law – legislating human stupidity.

Leave a comment

“Grant’s Law” is inconvenient but what else would government do if it was not filling our lives with inconvenience? Surely one would not expect them to address such issues as poverty, affordable housing, homelessness, addiction or mental illness? No, that would require thought, hard work and leadership. It is so much easier to pander to the public with “Grant’s Law”, than to tackle pressing social issues.

The Liberal government pays lip service to capitalism and letting the markets decide – until it is politically convenient for legislation or to avoid enforcing the laws protecting workers. All the government had to do was use the existing labour standards to prevent employers from deducting the cost of stolen gas from employees or from firing them because they were intelligent enough to do the smart thing – nothing.

But enforcing labour standards in this instance would have set a precedent and the government could have found itself under pressure to enforce all the labour standards, areas such as farm workers. Or even worse, find their selves under pressure to deal with issues such as keeping employees as “part time” to avoid the rights and benefits that accrue to full time employees.

My sympathies may go out to Grant’s parents, but this law still exasperates me. Not because I resent being treated like a criminal and inconvenienced every time I purchase gasoline, but because at its core it is a law legislating about human stupidity.

With apologies to Mr. De Patie, rushing out to confront a criminal armed with a high powered weapon weighing hundreds of kilograms is not an intelligent action. And a car, despite the way the laws deal with drivers who kill people (drunk or sober drivers), is a lethal weapon. A criminal or an idiot armed with a car is as deadly lethal as if armed with an AK-47 and confronting them, whether armed with a car or AK-47, is less than intelligent behaviour that is likely to prove fatal.

What this law is about, besides inconveniencing and treating as criminals the pubic, is preventing people from behaving stupidly.

If government is going down that path, it better get right on legislation governing the use of ladders; since in North America nearly a person a day dies and there are 100,000 injures from falling from ladders. Legislation is obviously needed, even though research shows that 100% of ladder accidents might be eliminated with proper attention to the application of equipment.

If we are going to legislate about human stupidity where do we stop? After all, as Albert Einstein noted “Only two things are infinite, the Universe and Human Stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”