Sometimes You Win One
Just a quick update on the earlier blog entry: the issue of churches vs. Department of Health came to a quick resolution. Once the issue came to the attention of the director and top staff of the Department of Health, a decision was rapidly reached to abandon attempts at licensing and regulating churches providing essential subsistence services to homeless persons. This pleased absolutely everyone except the newspaper reporter who had gone home after completing a page one story on the controversy, only to find out a couple of hours later that she had to go back in and rewrite it. She swears she will never again read a late-afternoon e-mail from me until at least 12 hours have passed. The person at the Department of Health who took on this benighted crusade may not be completely thrilled at the turn of events either. However, those of us working with the homeless, and those working in public health, are all very content.
The biggest gain came in knowing that not everyone is locked into a narrow view of rules, regulations, and bureaucratic turf struggles. Since I spend a lot of my professional life working with government contract managers, I spend a lot of my time being utterly frustrated by narrow-minded people incapable of abstract thought or vision. It is not unusual to spend hours arguing with a bureaucrat about a $1.56 bill for postage, faxing copies of letters sent in order to prove that the postage charge was attached to letters related to the particular grant. The contract manager is unmoved by the fact that both parties to the $1.56 dispute have now spent $75 each on resolving it. He or she is also not about to let us just drop the charge. It is hard for us to remember that the actual goal of the contract is, say, to provide services to victims, not fight over postage stamps. It is impossible for the contract manager.
Thus, contact with people on the bureaucratic side of the fence who share our passion for assisting the mentally ill, homeless, victims of crime, and other fragile persons is essential to maintaining balance and perspective. I am very lucky to have a contract manager for a homeless services grant who is not only reasonable in working through invoice issues, but will serve meals at a soup kitchen or collect blankets for a cold night shelter. And now I am fortunate to have seen the top personnel at the local Department of Health move rapidly to bring sense and reason to a rapidly escalating situation.
Tomorrow night is predicted to be a cold one. Fortunately, we can turn on the heat and open the doors to those in need.
Shoot Me Now
I'm sure everyone who keeps up with news sources and columnists has one or two (at least) people who represent the antithesis of everything they believe. For instance, the day I agree with Ann Coulter on any point, up to and including whether or not it is raining at any particular moment, I will know it's time to realize I have Alzheimer's and to pack it in. Whereas my revulsion toward John Stoessel is not quite as pronounced (probably because I know less about him), still, I would have placed his philosophy is the same basic category as that of Ms. Coulter.
However, last week Mr. Stoessel wrote a column expressing indignation that a county department of health was demanding that a church soup kitchen for the homeless install restaurant-grade facilities or shut down. The column left out a lot of details: whether or not there were other facilities for feeding the homeless; whether the kitchen staff exercised basic common sense; what had prompted the department to initiate an inspection. Still, Mr. Stoessel reported that there had been no known incidences of infection or disease due to improper food handling, and that some of the homeless said it was either eat there or out of a trash can. As difficult as it was to overcome my distaste for Mr. Stoessel, I had to agree with that the local department was guilty of over-reaching, and that the decision of the health department to rescind its decision was for the best.
Ironically, yesterday our local health department called me about the cold weather programs run by our churches for the homeless. Someone had tipped them off that churches were housing and feeding the homeless when the temperatures dropped to 40 degrees or below, and possibly in less than 4-star conditions. I had a copy of the statute governing the use of churches for compassionate causes, and said that there was some room for disagreement as to whether or not the health department held jurisdiction in these matters. I invited the health department representatives to attend a special meeting of the faith-based service providers. This morning I called and said we would host the meeting at 5 p.m. Thursday. The health department representatives appreciated our quick action, and said they would gladly attend.
Within half-an-hour of my discussion, the health department had sent out inspectors to all seven churches that host the cold night program. All seven churches were told they must cease and desist immediately. There were not enough bathrooms to accommodate the number of homeless spending the night; there were no posted rules as to hand washing; the thread count in some of the blankets was insufficiently high. The churches were told to stop serving meals and housing the homeless, or face prohibitive fines.
Whereas I may have not known if there were numerous facilities in the area highlighted by Mr. Stoessel, I know exactly how many facilities there are for homeless in my area. Shelter is available in exactly seven locations: the seven churches that alternate providing shelter, each taking one day a week. I know how many facilities serve meals: the seven churches on cold nights, and three of the same churches who provide once-a-week meals regardless of weather.
I also know the conditions in which people are housed and fed. There is inadequate space and insufficient bathrooms for the number of people sheltered. However, there is heat, running water, showers, bathrooms that are available after a short wait, blankets and laundry facilities. These things are notable for their absence on the streets, where people must go to the bathroom in the gutters, sleep in the wind and rain, and huddle under old newspapers.
It is true the kitchens have double sinks and hand washing sinks, but not sterilization sinks. They have refrigerators with compartments for meat, cheese, and vegetables, but not separate refrigerators for different food types. However, the people who run these kitchens generally come from restaurant and military kitchen backgrounds, and they maintain clean kitchens regularly scrubbed with disinfectants, wash hands frequently, and serve well-prepared, nourishing meals. The dumpsters behind the fast food places don't offer quite the variety nor the hygeinic standards.
While I was expostulating with the woman who was smugly telling me her results, I suggested that it wasn't as though the homeless had a choice between sleeping on the floor of a church or in a million dollar condo on the beach. If they didn't sleep in the church they slept in the cold, and if they didn't eat at the soup kitchen they ate from the dumpsters. If the interest was to protect the homeless public from infection, the odds were completely in the favor of those who could eat fresh meat and vegetables with clean hands.
The response: there are a number of excellent catering firms.
I asked if any of these catering firms were willing to receive an order at noon, which is when the churches make their final call as to whether or not they will open;
have a meal ready by 6:00 p.m.; and be prepared to feed any number of persons from 60-130, because you don't know until they get there how many there will be. Unsurprisingly, I didn't get an answer. Marie Antoinette didn't have a comeback line either (though there are those that say she never made those comments about cake).
I have a very hard time not seeing this as a political move. Conveniently, there was a meeting of the county commission tonight, and I whiled away three of my precious hours waiting until public comment was invited. By the time my turn came around, I did not lack for things to say.
Just like Jerry Melvin's talk show backfired at least in part (we have now received $3000 from individuals upset with his comments), it is quite possible the health department raid will generate support for a less make-shift solution to homeless issues. I'm furious, but not defeated. My church friends are equally motivated. By the time I left for the Commission meeting, my colleagues had fired off letters, e-mails and phone calls to state representatives, senators, county and city government officials, and to the head of the Department of Health. We'll see what we see.
I'll try to post my next blog on something far removed from homelessness - maybe even a comment or two on the unbelievable gall Bush had when telling Congress that unless they agreed to his agenda their children would face enormous deficits and a cut in benefits. Such words are failing me at the moment, however. I'll have to quit gasping like a landed fish before I can address that one.
Let me know if other communities have faced these problems, and how they were resolved. I love hearing from you, and have learned much.
Thank you
The response to my previous post was overwhelming, and far kinder than I deserved. I was experiencing a lapse there, giving into self-pity when resolve and reason were the better answers.
My dip into despair was not just the result of a few hateful remarks on the radio, or some nasty e-mails sent to my office. It's been a cumulative sapping of energy, as even many of my colleagues have had difficulty separating the causes I work for from the person I am. I have been wondering for some time whether or not my passions for social justice were hindering rather than helping the changes I espouse. Whether, in fact, I was becoming a distraction from the work of finding shelter for the homeless and hope for victims of crimes against women.
Contrary to popular opinion, I am not someone filled with certainty about every aspect of life. I have no brilliant solutions as to how to get us out of Iraq, or how to solve the issues of the Mideast, or how to respect fundamentalist religions of all stripes (Christian, Jewish, Muslin, Hindu for all I know) without letting their practitioners encroach on the rights of others. Members of these faiths absolutely are convinced that they must proselytize or go to hell. How do you respect their right to practice their religion without denying others the right to be left alone in theirs? You'll find no answers to these or many other questions from my corner. I can't even make definitive decisions about the clutter in my home and work offices.
However, on those issues about which I am certain, I am a bulldozer. I cannot see how anyone of good faith can disagree about those truths which I hold to be self-evident. Briefly, these are:
1) Women and men of all races, religions and ethnic origins are to be held in respect, and valued according to their individual merits and contributions.
2) The measures of success are not necessarily those of the dominant culture. For instance, a stereotypic male culture prizes aggressiveness, disdain for the weak, and stoicism. Both women and men can make excellent contributions to business and society by living up to the best within themselves, which may well encompass compassion, personal connections, and a willingness to listen. Women do not need to "outmasculine" men in order to prove themselves.
3) We are all caretakers of each other. Listening to women denigrate other women, stating that women are bitchy, catty, vicious and shallow is my idea of total torture. Hearing men dismiss the poor as worthless without taking a second to reflect on why those people may be poor and what circumstances may have pushed them into it is infuriating. We cannot dismiss whole classes of humanity as being without merit just because we have been fortunate in our own lives.
4) Parenthood, for those who choose it, really can be our own personal link to heaven. For the vast majority of us, our children are the greatest blessing we will ever know. My children have brought me joy without measure. They owe me nothing (though they give me everything). I owe them a society that is as fair and just as I can help shape it.
So where does this leave me in terms of the push to create a homeless shelter? I have given a lot of consideration as to whether or not I was just as guilty of confusing myself with my messages as others have been. So, to clarify it for myself and others, I have asked fellow toilers in the vineyard to become more public in their support for the homeless and for victims of crime. I have even been kind enough to draft suggestions of letters to the editor, to be submitted by others and which will appear soon. I will be taking the advice of many of you who have suggested specific persons and organizations who can be fantastic agents for change.
But, I am who I am. While I have done less in terms of actual caretaking of the homeless and women in need than almost anyone I know in recent years, I have been a huge catalyst for keeping these issues in the public eye. I listen very well, and can articulate on behalf of those whose ability to speak and write for themselves is limited. I can make myself heard in their names. Perhaps stirring up a hornet's nest is the most valuable contribution I can make. So for now, keep watching out for wasps.
The Price of Change
For ten years, I have worked for social change in my area. Generally I have been able to work behind the scenes, network with different community stakeholders, advocate with government officials, provide continuing education to professionals whose lives touch those of the persons I seek to help. Other than publishing the occasional op-ed piece in the paper (where by-lines usually go unnoticed), I've been able to slide under the radar while still contributing to positive outcomes.
In the last few days, this has not been the case. I made a speech to a packed crowd of business leaders, mayors, members of the Chamber of Commerce, interestned citizens and my "base" - providers of service to the homeless. At the time, I thought it went well. 50 or more people asked questions and made comments, and only two were negative. There were outbursts of applause for many of my comments, and the comments of those who were supporting a homeless shelter. I hoped that perhaps we reached a few new players, perhaps those who could truly turn a shelter into a reality.
The next day, I changed my mind. I still remembered the event as being a good experience, but the media didn't see it that way. They took the more lunatic response to my comments and played them up. A former legislative representative, Jerry Melvin, had said the answer to the homeless question was to round all the homeless up, fingerprint them, photograph them, give them medical screenings, and watch them. If they looked at someone funny, they should be locked up. If they didn't have a job in seven days, they should be deported. Meanwhile, to build a shelter was a crazed idea, since we had plenty of existing resources, and a shelter would be a duplication of services. His punch line was "we don't need to help Lenore build any more empires for herself and her company in this county."
He listed the existing resources, which not surprisingly added up to a total of 0 beds for the homeless. His first choice was the YMCA, which I'm sure would be startled to know it was a provider of homeless services. The YMCA offers a gym and a pool, all of which are open to members only. The next choice was the Salvation Army, which hasn't offered shelter for at least six years (and only offered 4 beds at $10 a night when they did). This should have been clear to Jerry, since the head of the Salvation Army had just announced he had no beds, his facility had no room, and their location was inaccesible to the homeless. The final suggestion was the Waterfront Rescue Mission, which allows homeless persons 3 nights of shelter. After that, a homeless individual must join their substance abuse recovery program or move on. They are not allowed back no matter how bitter the weather, or how desperate the individual. Contrary to public opinion, not every homeless person is an alcoholic or addict, and there are those who do not subscribe to the particular faith insisted upon by the Mission. Children don't even get the 3 nights.
Perhaps because these comments were so off-the-wall, they were the anchor to the newspaper account of the meeting. My empire building was particularly prominent in the news report, taking up the banner headline on the front page. The reporter described the meeting as one of testy exchange, and ignored the overall support expressed over the course of two hours.
Jerry's comments seemed to resonate with a substantial number of the rapid right-wing nuts (the very ones who find it un-Christian to help the poor). Jerry hosts a three-hour drive time talk-radio show, and I was the subject of his tirades and those of his call-in buddies. This was picked up by other talk radio hosts, and I was cursed and vilified off and on all day. Apparently my push to create a shelter is inciting the poor and homeless to flock to our area. I am doing this intentionally so as to engineer a take-over of local government, thus raising taxes and offering services that the poor don't deserve, and the government can't accomplish anyway. This would be laughable, except that the viciousness of most of the comments dampened the humorous aspect considerably. The hostility has carried over to letters and opinions printed in the newspaper.
My initial reactions are two-fold. My first instinct is to go on talk radio myself and set out my point of view. I know a review of the facts won't influence Jerry, but there might be a few of the 20,000 listeners who would hear them. The second instinct is to resign as head of the Continuum of Care that is spearheading the drive for a shelter. I question how effective I can be if I have become a lightning rod for anger and hate. Will the non-lunatic fringe be able to listen to what I have to offer, or will they see me as someone caught up in a petty and nasty fight? I already know from the original newspaper account that even though Jerry was the only one attacking anyone, the reporter apparently thought it a better story to make me a contender as well. The facts on this aspect no longer mean a thing.
I had lunch with a friend today, who said I should take all the furor as a sign of progress. People who have had their own way for decades are not excited about change, and it is clear that I have been effective enough to present a threat to the status quo. To flee the field now would be state that I had little belief in my own cause. I can see her point, but there is also merit in the concept that it is much safer, having roused a hornets nest, to put distance between yourself and the hornets.
If anyone has some great suggestions, I would appreciate hearing them in comments. I am feeling a bit lonely at the moment.
Starting Fresh
It's been hard to write about issues that I care about over the last few months, because the issues I care about have in many cases moved from the theoretical to the personal. It's one thing to write about the "sandwich generation." It's another to be totally immersed in that lifestyle.
Still, I do come up for air occasionally, and check out the portents for the coming year. It's a mixed bag.
On the bright side: We have a Democratic Congress; a woman Speaker of the House; a determination by the vast majority of Americans that the war in Iraq must end; and new attention to the needs of the working poor. A significant, and long-overdue, increase in the minimum wage is as close to a certainty as there can be in politics. There has been a growth in jobs that may actually turn out to be sustainable.
On the negative side: Our president thinks that escalation of the war in Iraq is the correct response to the public's desire for peace; the Democratic push for its share in corporate donations may help fund winning elections, but may also fragment the party in its efforts to roll back some of the more egregious tax cuts; the Republicans still control the executive and judicial branches of government (and every aspect of my state government).
A sense of change has produced a range of reactions locally. The media has taken up the issue of homelessness, and our religious right doesn't know what to make of it. On the one hand, they want to assign all responsibility for homelessness onto the homeless population itself. An entire editorial page was devoted to letters to the editor declaring that helping homeless persons would be to violate the Scriptures, and thus be unChristian. They quoted Paul: "Those who would not work, shall not eat." Every homeless person should get a job and pull themselves out of poverty. This would be less troublesome if all homeless persons were mentally and physically healthy adults able to choose from a plentitude of well-paying careers. Unfortunately, jobs available to two-year-olds are limited, and rarely cover the rent.
An aside: yes, I responded with my own letter to the editor, calling to mind the great fictional theologian, Ebenezer Scrooge, while quoting from Matthew, "As you do unto the least of these, my brethren, so you do unto me." Oddly, there hasn't been a single letter to the editor on the subject since.
Leaving that digression behind, there have been other responses to changes in the political winds, nationally and locally, and some have been less predictable than the exhortation to let the homeless starve. Indeed, the Fort Walton Beach Chamber of Commerce has adopted the Homeless Continuum of Care as its charity of the year, and is holding a series of fund-raisers to raise funds for our proposed shelter. It will take a bit to let that soak in.
Before I leave the topic of homelessness, a large number of persons have urged me to see the movie, "In Pursuit of Happyness." Opinions are divided, and I do really want to find some time to check it out for myself. Even if the movie does present a skewed version of how to overcome homelessness and poverty (which has been the prevailing opinion of my colleagues, though not the only one), it is encouraging that these issues are moving to center stage as defined by Hollywood.
Another issue whose time, I hope, has come is that of universal health insurance. There really is no argument left to be made that our current system is anything but a disservice to the entire country. Citizens of countries which have adopted universal health care, even bad plans, are healthier than citizens of the US, and the cost is vastly less than our part-free market, part-government, part-monopoly system of care. Who profits by our current system is somewhat random, and has little to do with skill levels or critical needs. A plastic surgeon specializing in breast enhancements makes ten times the salary of a primary care physician specializing in preventive medicine. The losers within our system are more easily defined: the chronically ill, the uninsured, and the public as a whole.
And in the spirit of a new year: here's hoping that 2007 brings out a kinder, gentler spirit than the one we have seen over the last decade - and here's to hope.
