Part I spoke to the need to exercise due diligence and caution when choosing  how and what you measure to judge what you are achieving and the need for a clear understanding of your goal[s], what achieving your goal[s] will in fact – versus what you expect – look like.

Failing to exercise due diligence can lead down the same path of self-sabotaging, self-destructive behaviour that had GM paying extravagant bonuses to executives to run the company into bankruptcy.

If your goal is to reduce the number of homeless on the streets what do you need to achieve?

Placing the homeless in housing would seem the obvious answer, but as Menken warned there is always a simple, easy answer that is wrong. Based on the number of homeless placed in housing or treatment there should be few [even negative] homeless on the streets.

Homelessness is a problem arising from human behaviours, As the Tao of James notes issues of that nature are complex and messy to deal with. That there are humans on both sides of the equation, the homeless on one side and all those it impacts on the other adds an additional layer of complexity, Factor in how much is known for sure that ain’t so and the messy complexity rises exponentially.

It would seem to make sense that the struggle to reduce the number of  homeless would be won or lost on your ability to get people into housing. Yet an analysis of the outcomes, and the consequences of focusing on getting people into housing, clearly show – and have for years – that simply placing people into housing [or treatment] is meaningless because they will return to the streets within a few months time.

Analysing the outcomes reveals it is not getting into housing, but the ability of the homeless to remain housed that is where the challenge lies. One homeless person was successfully housed 6 times in one fiscal period [year]. Successfully if your purpose is maximize the number of people you house [or place in treatment].

To reduce homeless numbers you need to enable people to achieve stable housing, to stick in housing, not to keep recycling them into the system, into housing and back into homelessness. No matter how efficiently you intake and process people through the system, you waste both time and resources unless you are providing the supports and services that will enable the homeless to achieve a level of wellness that enables them to maintain stable housing.

In fact, as the current state of homelessness in the lower mainland testifies to, the number of people placed in housing is a red herring that traps the unwary in behaviours that raise the number of homeless.

What makes the number of people placed in housing an alluring trap for the unwary, is that it is easy to measure a positive – number of people placed in housing – but measuring a negative – number of people prevented from falling out of housing – is a great deal more difficult and requires a much higher level of knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the issue; knowing what is fact – not simply believed; an awareness of the research and outcomes on the issue – and related, interconnected issues.

Perhaps the most important requirement is that you cannot be locked into what you know for sure that ain’t so;  the ability to set the intuitive aside and consider/go with the counter-intuitive and the ability/willingness to assess/re-assess and adjust/change plans, policies, behaviours – and your mind.

Primal Scream!

The truly frustrating – the truly disturbing thing – is that we know better. We in fact  know how to do it effectively. In those regions where they have committed to reducing homelessness they are reducing homeless numbers.

The results of the 5 year Canadian government research/study conducted by the Mental Health Commission of Canada demonstrate that the approach works effectively across Canada. Better yet the research/study produced a toolbox to permit any municipality, region or province that committed itself to reducing homeless numbers, to doing what was necessary to reduce homeless numbers, to create an action plan that would reduce the number of homeless – not endlessly recycle them through the system.

So why aren’t we, why do we remain trapped in recycling the increasing number of homeless?

It is not fast – 18 months on average. There are no nice neat snappy Success Matrixes.

Everyone knows for sure that all you have to do is place them in housing – problem solved.