I originally posted an article, The Secret to Ending Homeless in America on October 14th in response to an article by Michael at SLO Homeless, "Absurdity of the Bureaucratic Mindset". Dave Johnson, at his blog, Dare to Dream has posted some interesting counterpoints to my arguments in his article, Barriers, Behaviors, Sub-cultures and the Homeless Population. His arguments are intelligent and articulate and I will take the opportunity to respond to them here.
Dave's comments are in italics throughout this piece.
"Our world has always had an underclass, a group of individuals who have been largely invisible in the US except during the Depression. These people largely function outside the visible society and economy."
"They are chronically under or unemployment and are not collecting Social Security, either because they don't qualify, try though they may to apply, or they haven't the where-with-all to get themselves qualified. This chronic underclass is best described as a sub-culture. They are structurally built into the economy. "Full employment" doesn't include them. Because they have given up on finding work, they no longer register with unemployment offices and so are not counted among the unemployed. Those who are chronically homeless are a sub-group of this sub-culture, and probably represents some of its most dysfunctional members."
I am hoping that Dave is not equating the unemployed of the Depression era with the current population of chronically homeless people. I do want to make it clear that the population of which I am writing is not the working class family which has suddenly lost both of their jobs and for the first time found themselves staying at a homeless shelter. I am talking about the group of people who are repeatedly homeless and have repeatedly utilized shelters. This is the population which uses most of the services and monies - and which benefits the least from them. No matter how much case management and financial assistance we pour into them, they return to the shelters. I have a woman with 3 children staying at the shelter right now who has been cycling around and around in the shelters and social services system since 1999. She has been in every program and received every resource. She has been case managed by numerous social workers. She has received financial assistance from every resource multiple times.
I do not equate this population with the mass of people who found themselves without employment during the Depression for one main reason: the people who were out of work during the Depression were horrified at the aspect of having to be on "welfare" or to accept any kind of charity. They desperately wanted jobs, not assistance. This is why programs like the CCS and the WPA were created for them. In my humble opinion, I would not consider the chronically homeless of our current era to be "unemployed" or "underemployed". They simply do not work. They hows and whys of this are a mystery to me. I think one problem is that many of the programs they use to sustain themselves are prematurely cutoff if they obtain full-time employment, i.e. daycare or food stamps. The social services system actually punishes them for obtaining and maintaining full-time employment.
However, there is another factor which I simply cannot explain. I have seen too many people in this population obtain a full-time job and simply walk off it or not show up for it. And they do so for reasons which I cannot explain or understand.
Example:
A 52 year old grandmother was staying in the homeless shelter. Her son, daughter-in-law and their three children were residing in the family dorm. They had ended up in the shelter because her son and her daughter-in-law had walked off their full-time jobs with in one week of each other, then Mom moved in and the financial burden became untenable. Mom, the grandmother obtained a full-time job within one month of moving into the shelter. She walked off it after only one week because it was, in her words, "too boring". The family has been set up in affordable housing as of this writing. Mom has continued to refuse to look for work and has now moved in with the family. She is not on the lease or part of the housing agreement. If her presence is discovered there, the family will be evicted for breaking the lease contract and they will all return to the homeless shelter. Repeated attempts by caseworkers to get the family to realize this has failed to have an impact.
I have had numerous clients who were offered jobs but refused them citing reasons I cannot understand. "I don't like to get up that early." "They want me to work at nights." "I don't want to do that kind of work." Most of our clients have very, very poor work histories with long histories of impulsively walking off jobs or failing to report to work for various reasons. Their thought processes seem to be very impulsive with no thought for the future or the consequences of their decisions. This is the emotional immaturity and arrested development to which I refer in the original article.
Dave refers to this group as an "underclass sub-culture" and I thank him for this idea. I hadn't thought of it previously but I think he is definitely onto something here for this group truly has a culture of their own, individual from the predominant culture. Because so much of what they do seems to be in opposition to the dominant culture I wonder if they would not constitute a "counterculture". I have listened to homeless males talking on the bus and I think there is a definite group of the homeless who are proud of refusing to comply with societal norms and behavioral demands. But I'm not sure this is the same group I see cycling through the shelters. I suspect that this group openly shuns charity and social services, preferring to make it on their own. But at the same time I see that "on their own" usually involves panhandling or asking for "charity" which doesn't require participating in a lengthy procedural proceess (keeping appointments, completing paperwork, complying with program requirements). I work primarily with homeless families and single women, so the culture of homeless men may be vastly different.
"It's important to discourage a prejudice developing against a whole group of people who are already stigmatized along with the "welfare mother" of the AFDC era. But we are not going to get to a more complete solution without understanding the problem. I suspect that why there is little commentary on this topic."
I couldn't agree more. The sad thing is that the "welfare mother" to whom he refers is functioning better than the homeless mothers with whom I work. She keeps her affordable housing, she keeps her food stamps, she keeps her benefits in place. Most of the mothers I'm working with have had all the welfare benefits the "welfare queen" has, but have failed to maintain them. As Dave points out, it is important not to stigmatize these mothers. I do not think this is a personal failing or a lack of character. The mothers I see want to succeed, they want to be good parents, they want to have a piece of the American dream, but they do not seem to possess even the most basic skills for going about it. What is the problem? I'm not sure. That is what I hope to provoke a dialogue about. As Dave astutely points out, "we are not going to get to a more complete solution without understanding the problem". Lack of affordable housing is not the problem. The lack of functioning of this population is the problem. I think that makes funders and administrators uncomfortable. They seem to prefer problems they can fix by throwing money at them or building more houses. But that isn't working here. It is only exacerbating the problem. We have to actually sit down with these people and address their humanity.
"Persons who are members of the underclass see dysfunction as normal. They've never known any different. Many think this is how everyone lives. While they may dream of a good job, they appear to not have the self-discipline to keep a good job. Many of this group might be diagnosed with an anti-social personality DO. Personally, I think this diagnosis is misleading at best. A person earns this diagnosis if their history includes sufficient "anti-social" behavior. This doesn't account for family cultures that teach a confusing mix of conventional and anti-social values."
This is so, so true from what I'm seeing. And I think this further makes the case for Dave's description of this group as a "culture". Most of my clients were raised in homes which were chronically homeless and very nomadic. And as he says, they've never known anything else. They have social norms and values which seem consistent within the group, for they seem to understand each other completely. But these norms are in conflict with the norms of society in general. And this often manifests not only in the way they function in social programs, but in employment. They not only dream of good jobs, they are intelligent and personable enough to land them. But they do not keep them. The reasons for this need to be investigated fully - and addressed.
Dave is absolutely correct that a disproportionate number of this population is diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. His attribution to this behavior as a result of living on the streets and having to survive by street rules combined with the effects of PTSD from the traumas they have survived is right on. I would add one more factor: the influence of social service programs. I think we teach clients to lie to us without realizing it, then diagnose them as being "manipulative" and "evasive" when they do.
If a client comes to shelter staff after missing curfew one night and tells them the true reason they missed, because they relapsed on crack, they will be punished by being banned from the shelter. So they lie to save their bed and avoid being thrown back out on the streets and into a world filled with the drugs they are desperately trying to abstain from.
The same thing applies to employment. They've lost, walked off or been fired from every job they've ever had. They don't really know why they can't keep a job, but getting one will only lead to losing it and is a sure way to experience another failure. They also realize that the safest place they've ever been is the shelter. When placed in affordable or transitional housing in the community, they eventually get evicted and return to the shelter. Humiliated once again. And they do not have any insight about why they failed because there are no programs to help them identify and change these patterns. So they sit in the caseworker's office - and lie. "I want to get a job and get an apartment so I can get back out of the shelter." This is what the caseworker wants to hear in order to keep them in a bed. If they truly opened up to the caseworker and said what they really wanted, to stay in the shelter where it is safe for as long as possible and to avoid getting another job only to lose it, they would be tossed out into the streets. So they lie. What else can they do? What would any of us do in their shoes?
Like Dave, I do not believe there are any more antisocials in the homeless population than there are in the general population. This seems to be a misapplication of the norms of the predominant culture to the norms of a counterculture.
"Having grown up in a chaotic home and living a chaotic lifestyle, repeated trauma has numbed their emotions to the point that they are unable to make proper judgments about who is worthy of trust. The predator-prey dyad began in their family of origin where parents exploited the children when they were young, and when the children grow up, they exploit their vulnerable elderly parents."
Beautifully stated. This is absolutely right. I'm absolutely horrified at how most of my clients were treated as children. Abandoned to the point they had no food or decent clothing, not sent to school but allowed to run the streets and prostituted in exchange for their parent's drugs are only a few examples. The creation process for the predator-prey dyad is obvious when they tell you their histories. As is the reason for some type of self-medication for the symptoms of trauma.
"Chaotic events in close proximity in time give the victim the impression they have no control of their fate and so they scramble for every edge in the moment, and anxiously await for the next disaster to strike."
I have to agree with Dave on this as well, only he stated it much better than I did. In addition to an impaired judgment process I see that many people in this population act they way they do as a result of a trauma response. Something ordinary triggers them and they respond with a fight, flight or freeze behavior. If they respond by fighting they end up with assault charges. I think the majority respond with flight responses which contribute to their unstable, unreliable, "irresponsible" behaviors, such as walking away from jobs or suddenly moving to another geographical area leaving a wasteland of broken leases, unpaid utilities and bad credit histories. They appear to constantly teeter on the edge, failing to plan further ahead than the next day or even the next hour and I believe Dave is right that they live this way because they know of no other. They often displaly a kind of fatalism that prevents them from taking proactive measures or investing in the future.
Dave cites Bipolar Disorder as being largely prevalent in this population and a factor in their dysfunction by I strongly disagree. I believe that most people today are diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder as a result of having "mood swings". Bipolar Disorder is much more serious than mere mood swings and emotional lability is one of the symptoms of PTSD. I think this is just another way that PTSD is minimized by the psychiatric community and medicated instead of treated properly with counseling - which takes time and effort. Recent research is showing that Schizophrenia, Schizotypal Personality Disorder and Bipolar Disorder may not be actual "biochemical imbalances" but responses to trauma which, if treated with psychtherapy, can be resolved and medication at least sharply decreased if not eliminated completely. I wish we could stop labeling and diagnosing people with "disorders" and simply work with their history and their humanity. I do agree that a very large number of this population use various substances to try to self-medicate their symptoms of trauma. But we need to work to eradicate the symptoms not just medicate people with psychotropics or stick them in a substance abuse program.
"So what solutions are there for healing the cultural divide? The problem is mostly economic. The underclass lacks a realistic chance for escaping their plight. Oh, sure a few make it, usually through advanced education. But many will hit a ceiling in achievement when they rely too heavily on "temporary feel good" behavior that provides relief from stress, but self-destructively complicates their lives and increases the chances they will fall out of their newly found middle-class status.
The middle-class in is shrinking, many of the hard working blue collar workers are falling into the underclass from where with a floundering economy, escape will be difficult. Jobs programs, affordable housing, and counseling are sorely needed but remains largely unfunded. What infrastructure is present is actually shrinking with government tax dollars."
Well, I have to strongly disagree with Dave here. I whole heartedly agree that the middle class is shrinking and that the working class is floundering horribly. (For a more enlightened view on the economics of this, see the video by Richard Wolff, economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, "Capitalism Hits the Fan: A Marxian View".) I would be the first to advocate for more services and assistance for the working class who is laboring so hard to just to stay afloat, but I do not think that the overburdened middle class are the people in the homeless shelters. A few working class people are admitted to the shelters during the year, but they are very few and they stick out like a sore thumb. Their behavior is markedly different from that of the chronically homeless. And I see many more who never enter the shelters because they have the support of friends and family who take them in. I believe they have this support because they have not burnt these bridges nor have they spent a lifetime needed to be supported. This is an isolated incident in their case and family and friends are happy to help them get out of it. And get out of it they do. And they move on with their lives.
The clients I'm talking about only appear to break out of the homeless pattern and only then with the help of a lot of social services and financial assistance. Even with these supports they quickly flounder and sink back into homelessness and return to the shelter. All too often I see that the working class "makes too much money" to qualify for services rendered to the chronically homeless. Yet another "barrier" erected by the social services system which punishes people for working.
I also disagree that more affordable housing will solve the problem. Most of my clients have had affordable housing and lost it. They are either banned from applying for it again or have to wait a year to reapply. Their reasons for losing it are various, yet typical; not paying rent, not maintaining utilities, drug activity, domestic violence, damage to the property. This is the primary reason that I believe it is not an economic situation. As pointed out earlier in this article, the alleged "welfare queen" is also economically struggling. Yet she maintains her housing, often for decades. I think we need to stop calling it an economic situation and look at individuals factors which differentiate between housed and unhoused families in the poverty sector. Research has been done and there are some marked differences in their functioning.
"Too often the only role models for success are the gang members, drug dealers or pimps who drive fancy cars and flash wads of money."
Since I'm working mostly with single women and families the role models are not so much gang members and drug dealers, but the idea here is absolutely right. With homeless mothers and single women the role models seem to be "Beauty and the Beast" and "Damsel in Distress". As I've stated in other articles about homeless families an extremely high percentage of the single parents in the family dorm are here because of the partners they picked. A very high number of our mothers are repeatedly in shelters because of domestic violence. This is what I call the "Beauty and the Beast" role model. They truly believe that if they love this guy enough they can change a beast into a prince. When it fails, they return to a shelter and start over - with another beast. Another belief some women hold is that they will find a good man to "take care of them", the "Damsel in Distress" role model. First of all, if women want to be treated equally they need to act like equals. We are not children who need to be taken care of. We are grown adults who need to participate equally in raising a family. Especially in the current economy. It takes two full paychecks to get by these days. The idea of a stay at home mom is outmoded, at least for the working class. Secondly, a "good man" will not be found where these women are looking for them, in the alley of the homeless shelter. This latter point applies to single women and men. The problem which brings most of them to the shelter is getting into a relationship with a substance abuser who brings down the entire family both financially and structurally. Relationships with domestic violence and substance abuse are patterns which are learned in the family of origin. If a girl grows up watching Dad beat up Mom, odds are she will marry an abuser. If a boy grows up with a mother who is addicted to crack, odds are he will grow up to marry a woman who abuses crack.
Likewise, research has shown that children raised in homeless families grow up to raise homeless families themselves. This is where the pattern begins and it is passed from generation to generation just as surely as DNA. This is an issue which any successful intervention must address - the family patterns. Dave describes a successful "mental health boot camp" in which he is working. I would like to see something like this for families, where housing is provided for the entire family, but the adults must work for the government entity providing it full-time. Children will be enrolled in daycare or school and counseling will be provided for the entire family. This comprehensive intervention would work to "reparent" the parents and provide the children and their parents with healthy role models to emulate. Psychologists know that humans are very social creatures and modeling behavior is a very powerful tool. As Dave astutely pointed out above, the chronically homeless reside in a culture of their own. And the role models provided for them in that culture are one of the major sources of their dysfunction. I believe that any intervention that will be successful must address these factors.
Dave? Counterpoints? Anyone else?
We largely agree. I think you've misunderstood some of my comments. It will take me a few days to get a reply completed. Thanks for getting this started!
Posted by: Dave Johnson | October 26, 2009 at 09:29 PM
Hi, Kellin and Dave -
Okay, this topic is something I know very little about -- but I do have a thought to add.
In 2002, I lost my well-paying job, couldn't find a job (any job) because my market disappeared and I was too "over qualified" for entry level positions in any other field. McDonald's wouldn't even interview me. I spiraled down into financial ruin.
Fortunately, I have awesome family and friends who helped me out . . and, I am smart, hard working, resourceful and determined, so I was able to reinvent myself professionally and am slowly rebuilding financially. Along the way, I learned many valuable life lessons that are benefiting my life today.
But, I must say -- the experience really rattled my sense of who I am. It took me to very low places from which I wasn't sure I was going to come back. Most days I wanted to die. Most days I didn't want to get out of bed – and showing up for jobs I hated was almost too hard to do. I really didn't want to participate in life, at any level.
So, if I struggled so hard to keep moving forward despite all the advantages I had (and the reasons for hope I had), how in the hell is someone who basically has no advantages supposed to have enough hope to show up for a job or fill out paperwork? It seems to me that many of them might be attempting to commit a sort of suicide by apathy -- which doesn't sound like such a bad option when one is that low.
Just a thought.
- Marie (Coming Out of the Trees)
P.S. I wasn't able to jump through all the hoops required to comment on Dave's site.
Posted by: Marie | November 07, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Hi Marie,
I'm sorry to hear you had such a horrible experience. I'm afraid that experience is going to be shared by many more Americans in the future if our economy doesn't recover quickly. Losing everything you have worked so hard for can be totally devastating, not just financially, but physically, emotionally and mentally.
You have made an excellent point. Someone who has functioned fairly well their entire life can have a very hard time adjusting to such devastating losses and suicide may sometimes seem like an option. I think in individuals and families who have never functioned at that high level the repeated failures they experience is just as devastating, causing them to give up and lose all form of self-respect and hope. That's why I think it so important to focus on the humanity of homelessness rather than just tossing them in affordable housing. People need mental health treatment provided to them along with financial and housing assistance. We are not just numbers.
Thank you for your very insightful feedback. I'm happy you had family and friends who were there for you. I admire the strength and courage with which you overcame the situation. If you are now finding your back out of the trees, I'm sure it is because of the strength and courage with which you faced the situation and overcame it. Kudos to you and those who were there for you. I only wish we had more resources available so that your journey needn't have been so difficult.
Posted by: Kellen | November 09, 2009 at 09:18 AM