Homeless Response System Online Learning Clinic 2018 – Part I: From Managing to Ending Homelessness

Imagine We Could End Homelessness

There are many social ills of the past, that seemed intractable, that people would have said we would never get rid of, from slavery to segregation, from child labor to keeping children with special needs out of school. Imagine we could end homelessness. Not just help individuals. Not just manage homelessness. Imagine we could eradicate it. Imagine we could make this intractable social ill a thing of the past, too.

What do we mean by ending homelessness? We do not mean no one ever becomes homeless. It is a given that in a capitalist economy, there is economic churn, and that that cannot be fully prevented. This is why even Scandinavian social welfare states have some degree of homelessness. What we do mean is that homelessness rarely happens, when it does happen it is brief, and that it never happens to that person again. This is no pipe dream. Research[i] has shown that it is entirely doable.

Out with the Old – Managing Homelessness

The origins of the modern homelessness crisis begin in the late 1970s-early 1980s. It is difficult to narrow down one decisive cause for any social problem. However, roughly speaking, there are two major, somewhat technical, societal shifts that brought about this crisis. First, many persons with mental illness, were deinstitutionalized, and the hospitals they resided in were shut down. Second, a type of cheap housing, primarily for single underemployed, unskilled and/or disabled men, known as single resident occupancies (SROs) was largely discontinued. Many of those affected by these changes became homeless.

Though homelessness had existed before, it had not existed in the numbers akin to this crisis. Much in the way we deal with natural disasters, in the 1980s, our society attempted to deal with this problem through the use of emergency shelter. This did not solve the problem. In the 1990s, the Federal Government and related public and private entities decided through transitional housing programs, replete with myriad rules that the homeless needed to abide by, to help them address all their problems. The hope was that the homeless would graduate from these (often lengthy 24 month) programs “housing ready” and be able to move on their own into stable permanent housing. Unfortunately, only a minority of those who enrolled in these programs ever reached that goal. The Federal Government and local communities needed a viable alternative, but one did not seem evident.

In with the New – Ending Homelessness

Around the same time, a small program in New York City was being tested and was slowly gaining ground. This program/philosophy was called Housing First. The idea of Housing First was simple. Rather than trying to “fix” people, and then house them, these practitioners suggested standing the classic model on its head. House people, with two conditions only: They would need to abide by the terms of their leases, and meet periodically with a case manager. They would be offered wrap-around services to help them deal with their challenges, and they would be encouraged to use them. However, unlike in the traditional model, they would not be forced to do so. 

As opposed to the classical program that worked only for a minority of participants, the Housing First program worked for about 85%(!) of those enrolled in it. These 85% were able to achieve stable permanent housing. Though this program began with a small group of chronically homeless persons in New York City, these numbers held up in study after study, in community after community, in setting after setting. This led the consensus of scholars in the field to endorse Housing First, and the Federal Government to eventually follow suit, and mandate that all programs follow this philosophy[ii]. The message to all American communities was clear: The Federal Government would no longer fund the management of homelessness. It was time for the modern homelessness crisis to end.
 

 

As this was happening, in the 2000s-2010s, communities were developing more and more permanent supportive housing programs for the chronically homeless and others in need of a permanent setting with intense wrap around supports. And, during the Great Recession of the late Aughts, a related idea called Rapid Rehousing, for non-chronically homeless persons proved promising. The idea was that most of these individuals could be quickly housed, offered intense wrap around services for a limited time, and get back on their feet and move on in 90-180 days. As these settings gained ground, the Federal Government encouraged communities to shift their resources to these settings. Conversely, it began to discourage starting new transitional housing programs, due to their low success rate and high cost.

---

[i] Much of this blog post draws ideas and language from two sources:

• Opening Doors, the national strategic plan to end homelessness as amended in 2015,  http://usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_OpeningDoors_Amendment2015_FINAL.pdf
• Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Transforming Systems, and Changing Lives, by Deborah Padgett, Benjamin Henwood, and Sam Tsemberis (2016)

[ii] Randy Mayeux’s book synopsis of the above-mentioned book by Tsemberis and his colleagues is a great primer on the book and the issue. See https://youtu.be/GGlPME5yGa8

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.