Single-Loop Learning, Double-Loop Learning and Homelessness – Part I – Housing First

One of the most useful concepts in organizational learning theory is the idea of single-loop learning and double-loop learning, first introduced by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon in the 1970s. According to Argyris and Schon, an organization engages in single-loop learning, “when the error detected and corrected permits the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve its presents objectives... Double-loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives.”

 

In other words, and as this excellent infographic illustrates, in single-loop learning, we do not question the underlying assumptions (“Why”), under which we operate, only the strategies and techniques in use (“What”), whereas in double-loop learning, we question the actual underlying assumptions.

The idea of challenging the governing variables, under which we operate, can be extremely disconcerting. Padgett, Henwood and Tsemberis recount how, in one of their first attempts to seriously study the idea of Housing First, they had to contend with this.

At that time, the idea of Housing Readiness, that those experiencing homelessness had to be gradually prepared for housing, was widely accepted. The idea at the core of Housing First, that those experiencing homelessness could be housed immediately, and that the housing itself would have a stabilizing effect, that could then help them address the challenges in their lives, at their own pace, radically questioned the underlying beliefs prevalent at the time.

 

As one might expect, to study the idea of Housing First, Tsemberis and his team randomly assigned some clients to a traditional Housing Readiness program and some clients to the new Housing First program. This where they ran into a problem. Case managers involved in the study raised an ethical question. Since they “knew” that Housing Readiness worked, their values could preclude them from participating in a program that assigned some clients to a program that did not operate under this framework. Tsemberis and his team had to promise case managers that any client that “washed out” of the Housing First program, would be immediately offered a spot in a traditional Housing Readiness program.
 
The “rest of the story”, as radio broadcaster, Paul Harvey, might put it, was that Tsemberis’ double-loop learning paid off. Housing First was shown to be much more successful. In fact, at a certain point in the study, case managers came back to him, and once again raised an ethical concern. They could not, in good conscience, continue to participate in the study if the clients participating in the Housing Readiness program were not promised a spot in the Housing First program, once they “washed out” of the traditional program!
 
Continued study of the idea of Housing First led to it becoming the accepted model by the consensus of researchers in the field, and hence federal administrations across the political spectrum. The resistance to this idea having not died out, though, exhibits the strength governing variables, especially those rooted in strong beliefs and values can have. Double-loop learning is hard.

Broken

Today, at the invitation of Dr. Theresa Daniel, County Commissioner, District 1, and MDHA board member, I was honored to deliver the invocation at the Dallas County Commissioners Court meeting. Here is what I shared with them:

I wanted to thank Dr. Daniel for inviting me to give the invocation today, but more than that, I wanted to thank her for her ongoing passion and dedication in standing up for our homeless brothers and sisters. 

Thinking about homelessness in Dallas, I was reminded of a fascinating thing the Bible tells us about a legendary artifact shrouded in mystery, the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, if you have seen Indiana Jones (spoiler alert), with all the great special effects, we never really get to see too much of what is inside the Ark. 

 

 

Fortunately, the Bible gives it away. Among the objects in there, the two most prominent were the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. But wait, did I say two, or perhaps four… Because, according to the Talmud, both sets of tablets, the ones Moses breaks, and the replacement set God gave him, were housed in the Ark. 

(As an aside, here Moses teaches us, that like every smart Jew, you should always take out a warranty. You just never know!)

Now, the Ark eventually disappears from the biblical narrative. Hence, both the Ancient Rabbis, and their modern co-religionist, Steven Spielberg, get to imagine what happened to it. Let's take that one step further. 

 

 

Imagine YOU get into the huge warehouse that is shown in the last scene of Raiders. You find the Ark and the contents we have spoken of, the two sets of the Tablets, broken and whole. You are obviously excited. This easily would be one of the greatest findings in human history. And as befits any such event, you hold the inevitable press conference. 

Now, strain your imagination to the absurd. Imagine a reporter asks, "Hey, I get that the whole tablets are important, but who cares about those broken tablets? We should just toss them, and they definitely should NOT be housed in the Ark." What would be your reaction?

Well, if it was me, after I picked my jaw up off the floor, I would explain that both sets of Tablets would equally be among the two most cherished findings in human history. These are not just stone tablets. These are THE tablets. And that it is why, as the Ancient Rabbis remind us, לוחות ושברי לוחות מונחים בארון, the whole tablets AND the broken tablets are both housed in the Ark. 

This serves as a great metaphor for homelessness. The history of the modern homelessness crisis has seen two major approaches to solving this societal ill. One, often referred to as "housing readiness", implies that if you are homeless, there is something fundamentally broken about you. You, therefore, must be made whole again first, through a lengthy, demanding, complicated process. Only at the end of this process are you deemed worthy of housing. Clear evidence has shown that this approach does not really work for most people, yet it persists. Old habits die hard. 

 

The second approach is referred to as "Housing First", and it is rooted in the philosophy that everyone is fundamentally worthy of housing, as a basic human right. It favors housing the homeless as quickly as possible, with two conditions only, abide by your lease, and meet regularly with a case manager. It offers wrap around services, so the housed individuals can address whatever brokenness they have, whatever challenges they are dealing with, at their own direction. Clear evidence has shown that this approach really works for most people (in Dallas, it has a 95% success rate), and so it has been embraced by the consensus of scholars, the Federal Government and local governments across the country. 

The message of the legend of the Ark is instructive in this sense. It reminds us that whatever brokenness might manifest, the whole tablets AND the broken tablets are housed in the Ark. Yes, even the broken ones. They too are worthy. 

That's a good thing, because do you know who else is broken? I am and you are. The wholeness of the other set of tablets is just an aspiration in human life. We are all, each and every one of us, in our own individual ways, broken. And yet each one of us, housed and homeless, rich and poor, materially successful and those that are not, deserve the same basic dignity, a home. שלוחות ושברי לוחות מונחים בארון, for the whole tablets and the broken tablets are both housed within the Ark. 

Should All Ideas be Explored, or Just Those that Work?

In the discussions around homelessness in the last few months, we have heard the statement, “All ideas need to be explored,” more than once. Is it true?

I believe that in his satirical essay, New Proposal for Taking Care of Homeless Problem: a Catapult, Jim Schutze, in true Swiftian fashion, highlighted the fact that actually we all agree that some ideas do not merit exploration, or in other words, not all ideas need to be explored. Now, I could go down the Schutzian road, and say that the catapult would not work, because of its, ahem, impracticalities, but we all realize that it is really the immorality of the solution that precludes us from putting it into practice.



Cindy J. Crain, MDHA President and CEO, with a friend at Tent City, earlier this year

(Courtesy of WBAP)

So, now that we have established that not all ideas need to be explored, the question is, beyond the outright immoral solutions, how do we know which ideas are worth exploring, and which are not?

Here, unfortunately, morality will not help in decisively deciding this issue. There are those that say, that the homeless must prove themselves worthy of the help they are offered, and once they do, and only if they continue to prove themselves so worthy, should they be helped. Others contend that in a developed country, all have the right to a home, and that if, as a byproduct of our economic systems, some find themselves without a home, society is obligated to provide such a home. Both of these sides have a moral argument on their side. You, the reader, probably agree with one side and disagree with the other, and that is OK.

So, what we need to turn to in this case is not morality and philosophy, but social science. Through social science, we can analyze and decide what ideas work and what ideas do not. Social scientists can study these issues, reach conclusions, and tell us exactly what ideas work and what ideas do not. Then, in the words of our good friend, Randy Mayuex, we can do what works, rather than what we think might work, or what we wish might work.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, the modern homelessness crisis has been with us long enough, that social scientists have amassed a significant amount of evidence regarding what works and what does not. As Randy explained, though the word science makes some people (me included) sweat, the idea of following the science is really quite simple, according to Thomas Kuhn. With any new idea, the first step is to try it, the second step is to measure it, and the third step, if the measuring shows it actually works, is to replicate it. Though many outside the field of empirical peer-reviewed homelessness research may not be familiar with the research on what works and what does not, we are at that third stage. We know what works, because we have been measuring it, and we also know what does not work, because we have been measuring it. 

We know (not think) that the newer Housing First  model, housing the chronically homeless, on the condition that they abide by the terms of their lease and meet with a case manager, combined with wrap around services made available (not obligatory) to them, works for 85% of clients, on average. We know (not think) that the older Housing Readiness, housing the chronically homeless, only once they have hit certain treatment benchmarks, and conditioning their housing on their continuing to hit certain treatment benchmarks, works for 30% of clients, on average. 

Now and then we hear, that that is all fine and good, but that so and so, from her familiarity with homelessness knows that Housing First does not work. Not so. Once again, the evidence proves this person is wrong.

Now and then we hear, that that is all fine and good, but so and so simply cannot remain housed, and that proves that Housing First does not work. Not so. There is a small minority of people for whom Housing First does not work. However, often “does not work” just means that it did not work that time for that person, in that setting, with that array of services. So, we assess and try again to find an alternative setting, or a different array of services, that will help that person achieve permanent housing stability. This, by no means, proves that Housing First does not work. That is not how social science (i.e. reality) works.  

Now and then we hear that that is all fine and good, but Housing First will not work in Dallas. Now, if Housing First had not been tried in Dallas, that would still be wrong, because the numbers are consistent, everywhere it has been tried. However, Housing First has been the policy for permanent housing programs funded by the Federal Government, for a number of years, so we actually can answer that question. In Dallas, these programs, over the course of the last 12 months, have shown a 96% success rate! This is why, our good friend and board member, Ikenna Mogbo, said a few months ago, on KERA’s Think, that arguing about Housing First, is like arguing if the world is round or flat. What we need to do is stop arguing and just continue implementing.

One final criticism we hear is that Housing First might work in the long term, but we need some short term solutions too, today, tomorrow, or if possible yesterday. This criticism misses the mark too. The idea of Housing First is that the homeless can and should be housed from the street, if need be. In How Dallas is starting to solve its homeless problem MDHA President and CEO, Cindy J. Crain, shared with the readers of the Dallas Morning News, results of how we have been housing the unsheltered in the encampments in Dallas, in accordance with the precepts of Housing First, from mid-February through today. As we speak, we continue to do so, right now. These results further elucidate what can, should and will continue to be implemented in our community, in the short, medium and long term, as we follow the evidence of what works.