Category Archives: behaviour

behaviour, Homeless, Issues, Municipal, Politics

Commission or Omission?

Leave a comment

“Fraser Valley Inn, Station Pub, Duke of Dublin Irish Pub, Liquor Depot, drug dealers…”

“And your point is?”

“They are all around the location where Abbotsford Community Services want to build the 20 units of first stage housing.”

“And your point is?”

“The existence of sources of alcohol and drugs means you cannot build the proposed first stage housing behind ACS.”

“Wrong. Easy access to alcohol and drugs is needed in order for first stage housing to accomplish its purpose.”

Housing First  is an alternative to a system of emergency shelter/transitional housing progressions. Rather than moving homeless individuals through different “levels” of housing, known as the Continuum of Care, whereby each level moves them closer to “independent housing” (for example: from the streets to a public shelter, and from a public shelter to treatment (if needed), to a transitional housing program, and from there to their own apartment in the community) Housing First moves the homeless from the streets or homeless shelters directly into their own housing. 

 This approach is based on the concept that the first and primary need of the homeless is to obtain stable housing, and that other issues that may affect the homeless can and should be addressed once housing is obtained.

Housing First is endorsed as a “best practice” for governments and service-agencies to use in their fight to end chronic homelessness. Consequently Housing First is used in many Canadian ten year plans to end homelessness.

Housing First is used in those Canadian plans, and in Europe, because of the effectiveness demonstrated in achieving significant reductions in homelessness across the United States where Housing First was developed by Pathways to Housing, Inc., of New York City for which they won the 2005 American Psychiatric Association Gold Achievement Award in the category of community-based programs.   

The most important thing to remember in addressing homelessness, substance use, mental illness et al is that it is about/involves human beings.

Which means messy, aggravating, infuriating, ass backwards, counter intuitive, no nice neat easy solution, no ‘solution’, many solutions  – as many solutions as individuals, unpredictability and so on…….’a dog’s breakfast’.

Housing first has demonstrated that contrary (humans involved = contrary content) to logical expectations, housing people under housing first principles does not simply enable them to continue their behaviour but results in them making positive decisions and seeking help in taking back control of their lives faster than they otherwise would have.

The question is not whether council should rezone the site Abbotsford Community Services will use for first stage housing but why council has not already rezoned the property?

Raising the troubling question: whether the citing of the easy access to alcohol and drugs is a result of a Machiavellian attempt to hoodwink citizens into (wrongly, falsely) opposing the downtown location (commission) or is a result of ignorance and closed minds (omission).

behaviour, Consider, Homeless, Issues, Municipal, Politics

End Nigh for Gladys Camp?

Leave a comment

It was not a sign post……

 

 

 

 

 

 

….or a complicated system of divination………

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………that leads me to predict the end is near for the homeless camp on Gladys Avenue across from the Salvation Army.

It was the appearance of the radar trailer unit that shows drivers their speed….

……..on Gladys Avenue in front of the house adjacent to the Salvation Army on Saturday [September 7, 2013] that foreshadows the intention of the mayor and city council to remove the homeless and their camp from Gladys.

 

 

From the moment the media descended on Abbotsford in response to the City’s crazed decision to weaponize and deploy chicken feces against the homeless, the mantra of those who wanted the camp in anyone else’s neighbourhood has been concern for the safety of the homeless vis-à-vis traffic.

A concern manifested when the city turned gun shy [chicken?] about dealing with such a public, media exposed camp.

As if prior to the camp the homeless were not crossing from one side of Gladys to the other.

Indeed, one could argue that the presence of the camp and the public awareness of the camp’s existence makes crossing the road in that section of Gladys safer than it has ever been or will be after the camp is gone.

What would you care to wager that once the camp is gone the expressions of concern about the homeless getting struck by traffic will be gone as well?

The most dangerous aspect of crossing Gladys is that it is a road in Abbotsford: poor or no lighting, meandering and/or invisible lane markings, pavement that threatens to toss your vehicle off the road and vehicle swallowing puddles; which makes mayor and council the leading threat to the homeless from traffic.

Whether on Monday, or a day shortly thereafter, the health department should be appearing at the camp, with the camp being declared a health hazard and the city ‘forced’ to close it for health reasons.

Other than all the dithering, the use of the wringing of hands over the safety of the homeless in traffic, the involvement of health inspectors and not using chicken feces what has changed since Abbotsford’s Day of International Infamy?

Admittedly, we now know the worth of an apology from Mayor Banman and council, giving us the measure of mayor and council.

I am not saying or in any way advocating that the homeless camp on Gladys should be left there.

While the use of chicken feces is unacceptable……

 

 

 

 

 

 

……the camp on Gladys is not much more acceptable, on a number of levels and for numerous reasons, than the use of chicken feces was.

 

The issue with what will occur with the camp on Gladys lies in the question of: what has changed?

 

 

When asked at the time of Mayor Banman’s [as of this point in time] non-apology what form I wanted the apology to take, I stated the city needed a changes in behaviour, attitudes, knowledge and understanding to achieve positive outcomes rather than continuing untold more years of negative consequences and harm to the homeless.

The city can have and use all the nice protocols it wants; have ‘concern for the risk posed to the homeless by traffic’; the use of health inspectors and health concerns; use all the politically correct language and buzzwords it wants; the bottom line remains: were are the homeless suppose to go? The Twilight zone? Down the rabbit hole to Wonderland?

Stripped down to its reality the city is back, however gently and slowly at this point, engaged once more in the futility of pointlessly chasing the homeless around Abbotsford from camp to camp.

It is not just that mayor and council have no ideas or strategies to address homelessness, but that mayor and council are actively refusing strategies demonstrated effective in reducing homelessness.

Given the wilful ignorance and callus disregard for the homeless in the mayor and council’s return to business as usual in its behaviours and actions towards the homeless and the atrocious behaviour of the mayor and council’s in evading the rezoning to permit Abbotsford Community Services to provide twenty units of first stage housing to the homeless……

……the use of chicken feces by city staff against the homeless is looking less and less offensive……

……while the behaviour of mayor and council is looking more and more offensive.

behaviour, Issues, Municipal, Politics

No Apology Intended

Leave a comment

A citizen of Abbotsford who had some ideas and questions about dealing with homelessness tracked me to converse. Included in the conversing was Mayor Banman’s apology to the homeless.

I pointed out that saying “Sorry” did nothing but acknowledge the City had harmed the homeless; that a true apology required the mayor and council to change the behaviours and attitudes that led the city to weaponize and deploy chicken feces against the homeless.

Noting that mayors and councils of Abbotsford have a well established history of saying “Oops, Sorry”, tossing around some politically correct statements – then returning to the same behaviours and attitudes that led to the City being forced by media scrutiny to say “Sorry”.

If Mayor Banman and council had any real intent to apologize, the property Abbotsford Community Services wants to use for first stage housing would already be rezoned and construction begun.

Instead we have Mayor Banman’s stated opposition to the ACS proposal and the silence of council on the housing project; a project that would be a positive step in changing behaviour from pointless, to behaviours proven to lead to sobriety, housing and wellness for homeless.

“I think Abbotsford Community Services and the ADBA and residents need to get together in one room and talk about their positions and come to a compromise,” said Banman.

Exactly where does Mayor Banman see room for compromise?

ACS either complies with the terms of their agreement with BC Housing and Abbotsford City Council rezones the property OR Abbotsford does not get needed first stage housing AND loses $millions$ of dollars of funding from the provincial government.

Given mayor and council’s demonstrated lack of backbone on matters that do not involve development or the waste of million’s of taxpayer dollars, why would those among the ADBA and residents who support a mythical and unspecified ‘Right Location’ somewhere, anywhere, Not In Their Back Yard compromise?

The mayor said “smart” developers work with neighbours to address concerns.

Such as happened with the 26 story Mahogany at Mill Lake?

Where the rezoning was voted down, but then snuck back before council (while one of the councillors opposed to the development was out of town) and approved. Interesting definitions Mayor Banman has for “smart” and “working with neighbours”.

“It would make council’s decision a lot easier.”

I see. It is not about reality (there are homeless in Abbotsford) or facts (first stage housing has proven to be a first step to sobriety, housing and wellness) or the needs of the City and its citizens (we need to use what has proven effective elsewhere in addressing homelessness and associated health issues) or ending council’s policy of worsening the problem.

It is about the easy way out. How very………nice for the mayor and council.

Abbotsford Mayor Bruce Banman said the community division and polarized nature of the debate over the project is counterproductive.

NIMBYism is always divisive, polarizing and counterproductive.

Or at least it is in leadership vacuums such as the one created by the mayor and council’s choice of the path of least resistance, a path abundant with missed opportunities.

If we want outcomes other than the pointless and often negative consequences that flow from council’s wilful denial of reality, we have to get out of our comfortable mental ruts, stop doing what we are doing and blaze a trail going where there is no path.

We need to choose the path that leads us where we need to go. Not to where we want to go, but to where we need to go.

Citizens need to instruct Mayor Banman and city council – email, phone call, letter or face to face – that enough is enough that it is far past time to put an effective strategy in place and as a first step to rezone the Abbotsford Community Services property – Now.

Citizens also need to instruct mayor and council to adopt a rational strategy for managing  the challenges and problems of homelessness until resources are in place and beginning to offset the consequences of years of counterproductive behaviour by mayors and councils.

behaviour, Hmmm, Homeless, Issues, Municipal, Politics

To Be, or not to Be, or what to Be,

Leave a comment

……that is the question; the primary question [or questions] you must ask if you are located outside of a shelter rich environment such as Vancouver or Toronto.

In an environment with multiple shelters, individual shelters can be tasked to serve the needs of a single class of clients [i.e. a class composed of those waiting for a spot in a treatment center – such as Kinghaven – to become available].  Using a single shelter to meet the needs of a single class of clients avoids the problems that arise from the conflicts between the differing needs that different classes [groupings] of homeless have.

In a shelter rich environment, meeting the needs of the different classes within the homeless population requires determining the size of each class of homeless and assigning a shelter [or shelters] to meet the needs of each different class [classification] of homeless.

Outside of major population centers such as Vancouver, in locations where there is only a single shelter (Mission, Maple Ridge, Chilliwack, Abbotsford etc.) serving the conflicting needs of the different classes among the homeless is a challenge.

Indeed, it is highly probable the conflicts between the needs of the different classes of clients among the homeless will make it impossible to serve all the conflicting needs equally.

This reality makes it vital to consider the purpose, the raison d’etre, for the shelter and to set the priorities of the shelter in accordance with the raison d’etre of the shelter.

Having decided upon the purpose [or purposes] and priorities of the shelter one uses the purpose [purposes] and priorities to set the operating policies and procedures for the shelter, and to resolve the conflicts that arise from the differing needs of the various classes of homeless.

Setting shelter policy first will set the the purpose and priorities of the shelter without regard to whether the purpose and priorities thus set are good, bad, ugly, desired, helpful or suitable.

As an illustration of why it is vital to give careful consideration to the purpose and priorities of the shelter in order to set the policies and priorities and avoid unwanted negative consequences, consider the following example:

Suppose you decide the shelter beds must be full every night; thereby setting the primary purpose of the shelter as maximizing the number of homeless warehoused by the shelter.

Having set the shelter’s purpose as maximizing the number of homeless warehoused you are faced with two basic policy approaches to maximizing the probability that the shelter will be fully occupied every night.

The simplest approach – theoretically – is first come first served; where you open the shelter doors at a designated opening time and, starting with those at the head of the line, admit the number of homeless required to fill the beds.

For purposes of our example let’s set 6 PM as the time the shelter opens; have the shelter provide an evening meal for those in the shelter, but only for those in the shelter; have the shelter have beds that will accommodate 15 men and 5 woman [20 beds in total].

This approach maximizes the probability the shelter will be fully occupied every night, and that the number of people in line at opening will increase over time.

The two major consequences associated with this approach:

1)    no provision for continuity for people to be in the shelter every night; if you were in the shelter the prior night but are not among the first 15 men or 5 women in line –  you are SOL.

2)    The need to be among the first 15 men or 5 women in line will tend, over time, to have the line for a shelter bed that evening form at a time earlier and earlier before the shelter opens; the need to be among the first 15 men or 5 woman combined with the line for a shelter bed forming at an ever earlier time increases the probability of conflicts over position in the line and line etiquette; leading to an increasing probability of violence and the need to police the line;

The other principal approach is to open the shelter doors, admit those who were in the shelter the prior night first and then fill the empty beds, if there are any empty beds.

Of course this approach means that as long as a person shows up at the time the shelter opens every night you are housing them. It also reduces accessibility to the shelter as a bed (beds) only become available when someone in the shelter fails to be there at opening. Over time the beds in the shelter will become filled with those who are capable of, and good at, arriving at opening time. This will result in access to a shelter bed for anyone not already in the shelter becoming a more and more infrequent occurrence.

You can address the issue of access to shelter beds through turnover in the shelter by setting the number of nights someone can access a shelter bed and requiring that anyone who reaches the allowed number of nights must be absent from the shelter for 30 days before they can again access the shelter.

To ensure the shelter has no night where any bed is empty, you will want to set a high number of nights someone can access the shelter before they are required to wait 30 days before they can again access a bed in the shelter.

For purposes of our example let’s set a month, 30 days, as the number of nights a person gets before they are required to wait 30 days before being eligible to access a shelter bed.

What are the consequences of setting 30 nights as the number of nights before someone is required to wait 30 days to return?

Once the homeless are aware of and adjust to having 30 nights (as opposed to a lower number for nights such as……..5) there are likely to be no nights, or almost no nights, where all the shelter beds are not in use; no nights, or almost no nights, where there is a bed available in the shelter.

In fact, once the 30 days availability is widely known the probability is that the shelter beds will be full and it will be necessary to turn away people upon opening the shelter.

You will have succeeded in minimizing [or eliminating] empty shelter beds.

Succeeded……if you evaluate the results and consequences solely on the basis of the purpose of the shelter being to maximizing the number of homeless warehoused by the shelter.

What are the consequences of having filling all the beds as your primary focus?

The operating policies that reduce the number of empty beds to (or close to) zero also result in a significant reduction in turnover and therefore the opportunity for someone not already in the shelter to access a bed. Should everyone from the night before return, a circumstance that becomes more frequent under policies of 100% occupancy, nobody not already in the shelter will get a bed.

The operating policies of 100% occupancy will also result in there being few, if any, nights were any shelter beds are available after the 6 PM shelter opening time.

What major consequences flow from setting the purpose of the shelter as being to have 100% of the beds occupied and the operating policies to achieve this purpose?

If you are going to have an emergency that would result in you needing a shelter bed you have to make sure it happens sufficiently before 6 PM for you to get to the shelter before opening time. Additionally you need to ensure your emergency occurs on a night were there will be some turnover among those staying at the shelter and that either you are the only new to the shelter client or there are a sufficient number of beds available for all newcomers to get a bed.

The police will also need to ensure that all incidents that currently lead to their calling the shelter to see if it has a bed available (i.e. a domestic dispute where the APD feels that having one of the parties spend the night at the is the best recourse) occur before 6 PM and on a day when a bed will be available so the APD’s quest can find accommodation at the shelter.

The Hospital will also need to be sure that anyone at the hospital who needs a bed at the shelter is treated in time to be at the shelter by 6 PM and that this occurs on a day when there will be sufficient turnover in people staying at the shelter so that sufficient beds are available for newcomers to the shelter to be accommodated. .

The shelter line and after hours emergency services will simply need to live with the fact that there are no beds available after 6 PM or, alternatively, also ensure those needing a bed are at the shelter by 6 PM and on a day there will be a bed available.

Those considering getting into treatment will need to be sure to time their thinking about/considering treatment on a timeline that ensures their arrival at the shelter by 6 PM on a night when a bed will be available. Statistically they will need to be prepared to return night after night at 6 PM until a bed becomes available to accommodate them. No longer will they be able to find a bed if it is not until after 6 PM that they are moved to come to the shelter and talk to (be encouraged by) shelter staff about signing up to talk to Outreach who will help them get find a treatment program.

And those who are headed to treatment when a bed becomes available for them, but need a safe place to stay and staff who will support/encourage them to hang in there (stay sober) until a treatment spot opens up for them? They had better be lucky enough in their timing to be able to access a bed.

Those in recovery houses who suffer a slip and need refuge for the 3 – 5 days they are required to be sober before being allowed to return to the recovery house – pretty much SOL and trying to stay sober and survive on the streets.

Need shelter and help to find a new home? Do you need some other form of assistance?  If you are not one of the lucky few for whom a bed is available – too bad.

A newbie? Good luck; you are going to need lots of luck going for you to get a bed in the shelter and gain access to shelter staff to talk with and explore options and services available before falling through the crack into long term homelessness.

Have mental health issues that make functioning difficult? Under these circumstances the best option to find help is to find the person responsible for setting the purpose of the shelter as being 100% full and kick their ass, repeatedly while screaming aspersions as to said person’s nature, ancestors and abilities. This will ensure the police take you to the hospital where you will have priority for a bed and help, circumventing the shelter’s sorry, SOL state.

Hopefully this limited examination of the consequences of setting the policy (and thus the purpose) of the shelter as being 100% occupied is sufficient to make clear why it is vital to set the purpose and priorities for a shelter before setting the policies and procedures.

Achieving 100% occupancy of the shelter is not progress, or necessarily progress-  depending upon whether you view a cannibal using a fork as progress.

To be (or not to be) a shelter for those suffering a true emergency (i.e. fire), or to be a shelter for those seeking to retake and rebuild their lives by undertaking the hard work to find housing or treatment for substance use or to begin the journey in search of mental health; or to be a flophouse to warehouse those who have no interest at this point in time in changing?

It is vital that you decide what it is you want to accomplish with the shelter, setting out what the shelter is to be or not to be and setting the operational policies and procedures based on the purpose of the shelter being defined in terms of what it is you want to accomplish with the shelter, what needs do you want the shelter to address and meet.

Given purpose, priorities and needs I see the shelter having to meet, I would argue that having policies and priorities that result in an empty bed every night will serve those varying needs whereas a focus on ensuring all the beds are full will in fact defeat or deny the ability of the shelter to meet the purpose, priorities and needs of the city and its people.

Understand that I am not saying one should not seek to maximize the utilization of shelter beds, but that that operating policies should first seek to ensure the needs of the community are met and then make adjustments to your operating policies to maximize shelter bed usage only to the point where continuing to focus on bed usage will have negative consequences on the shelters ability to meet the communities needs.

Serving the purpose and priorities the community needs served is more important than having 100% bed usage and failing badly in meeting the community needs.

This is particularly true when the focus on 100% bed usage has the shelter performing more in the nature of a flophouse/semi-crack shack than as a shelter seeking to address the varied needs of the community to the best of its ability.

 

Postscript: The example used in examining why it is vital to set shelter operating policies in line with and to support the purpose(s) and priorities of the shelter does not mean that one cannot seek to increase the rate of occupancy of shelter beds. What the example reveals is that if you want to maintain the ability of the shelter to meet the needs of the community it is necessary to be cognizant of the reality that maintaining the shelter’s ability to serve the community’s needs will require acceptance of less than 100% bed usage and that any actions taken to increase bed usage require thoughtfulness, care and patience to ensure the shelter continues to serve the purposes, priorities and needs of the community.

The number of nights was adjusted from 10 to 5 to accommodate the introduction of Case Management and the reality that in the beginning Case Management had often required the use of more than 50% of the shelter beds. In order to ensure the shelter’s ability to meet the needs of the community the number of nights one received before needing to wait 30 days to return to the shelter was reduced from 10 to 5 to provide for adequate availability.

Over time the ‘rush’ on the new Case Management services had peaked and steadied at a lower level of demand for Case Management services. This lower level of demand resulted in a decrease in bed utilization.

In light of the history of, and experience with, the shelter the first step in increasing bed usage in the shelter should have been to raise the number of nights someone could stay at the shelter without working with Case Management from 5 to back to 10 nights to see the effect this change had upon bed utilization and the ability of the shelter to serve the needs of the community.

Should it prove necessary careful adjustment of the nights up (or down) from 10 could/would be made in the future to maximize bed usage and to continue to serve the needs of the community. 

behaviour, Homeless, Issues, Media, Municipal, Politics

Words do NOT an apology make.

Leave a comment

Despite what you may have heard or read in the media, neither Mayor Banman nor Abbotsford City Council have made their apologies to the homeless for the use of chicken s**t as a weapon in the war the mayor and council have been waging on the homeless.

Mayor Banman has, under the intense scrutiny of the media, taken the step that political correctness and PR demanded – a photo op with his mayorness saying “sorry” and shaking hands with the homeless.

Mayor Banman’s words do not constitute an apology.

Consider: I walk up to you and smacked you hard ‘upside the head’, say “Sorry” and leave. The next day I walk up to you and smacked you hard ‘upside the head’, say “Sorry” and leave. The day after that I walk up to you and smacked you hard ‘upside the head’, say “Sorry” and leave. This continues for 30 days,

Have I apologized to you 30 times? Of course not! The word “sorry”, no matter how many times it is said, is meaningless….unless and until I change the offensive behaviour, until I cease to smack you hard ‘upside the head’.. An apology occurs when the offender stops the offensive behaviour.

Mayor Banman’s “sorry” is nothing more than an acknowledgement that his, city council’s and the City of Abbotsford’s interpersonal accounts with the homeless are out of balance; that the lack of scruples and ethics in the City’s treatment of the homeless has resulted in a debt being owed the homeless.

The personal account balances of the mayor, council, the City of Abbotsford and Abbotsford’s homeless citizens cannot be brought into balance through words.

The homeless have heard Abbotsford mayors and councils say “sorry” on numerous occasions over the past ten years. “Sorry” being said to the homeless whenever the actions of mayors and councils have put the City of Abbotsford under negative public scrutiny by the media. If there is any group in Abbotsford who understand how valueless the words, particularly “sorry”, of Abbotsford’s mayors and councillors are – it is the homeless.

The mayor, council and the City of Abbotsford will have apologized to the homelss when they stop treating the homeless like an infestation to be cleansed from the city and treat them as human beings in need of a helping hand, encouragement and support to get on their feet and achieve a state of wellness.