10 Critical Questions for Every Shelter and Shelter System

At National Alliance to End Homelessness Conferences the past couple years, in our training and transforming of shelter providers and shelter systems, and one of the foci of our upcoming How to Be an Awesome Shelter Learning Clinic in Dallas, are these 10 critical questions that every shelter and shelter system should be asking themselves:

1. Is shelter a process or a destination?

When shelters are a process, the focus is on housing from the moment they show up seeking services. It starts with diversion. When that is not possible, there is unrelenting focus on getting people into housing as quickly as possible through self-resolution or through housing assistance programs. When shelter is seen as a destination, the focus is more on programming within the shelter that can inadvertently result in people staying in shelter longer – and sometimes becoming so integrated into the programming and comforts of shelter that they begin to see shelter a home.

2. Are the people getting access to shelter those that need it the most or those that were lucky enough to get it?

Many communities are starting to wrestle with this very question if they are integrating shelter access into their coordinated entry process. Homelessness has a longitudinal bias – the longer you are homeless, the better you are at navigating and surviving within homelessness. This includes knowing how the shelter system works, where to show up, and the behaviour expectations when seeking shelter. This does not mean the most acute are being sheltered. It means those that know how to navigate the shelter system are being sheltered.

3. Do we attempt to heal or fix people?

Shelters quickly become therapeutic incarceration when there are attempts to heal or fix the issues a person or family presents with, rather than focusing on housing. Remarkably imperfect people are fantastic at being housed. A deficit-based approach to shelter places the emphasis not on housing, but on things that are best focused on once the person or family gets housed, not before. Are some people or families going to need a lot of support? Yes. But thinking issues need to be resolved to get someone ready for housing is misguided.

4. Do we provide a social service? Or are we exercising social control?

It can be uncomfortable to look at the rules of a shelter and how they are applied. Why? Because you come face to face with the reality that while you often remark that you are non-judgmental, strength-based, person-centered, and/or trauma-informed, your rules and practices surrounding those rules prove otherwise. Compliance-based sheltering essentially says, "Act the way I tell you to in order for me to provide you what you need." As many shelters we have worked with come to realize, you can focus on six or seven expectations rather than pages of rules. And the good thing about expectations is that they are socialized rather than enforced.

5. Does the built form and layout promote dignity and decrease conflict?

Often the provision of shelter occurs in a building that was never purposely designed or built to be a shelter. And if the building was purposely designed and built to be a shelter, I often am perplexed by the decisions that are made which often have to do with what is easiest or best for staff – or the color palette or design features that middle class folk may like – rather than examining what trauma-informed building design tells us is best by way of common spaces, corners, lighting, color choices and the like.

6. Do we believe that homelessness should be short and non-recurring – and that shelters have a role in making that happen?

Too often shelters are seen – by themselves and by others – as a place of last resort. It is accepted as dumping ground for hospitals, corrections, older adult care, youth aging out of care and so on. If shelters really want to play an important role in a system of care they need to stop being anyone’s last choice or dumping ground. They need to own the space of being the place of first choice for people with a housing stabilization crisis as the premiere opportunity to become re-housed again as quickly as possible.

7. Do we restrict services only in limited circumstances, in a transparent manner, and for justifiable reasons?

The reasons a person or family can be asked to leave a shelter are quite varied, sometimes within the same community working with the same population group. The length of time they are asked to leave is also variable. It raises the question of why we are asking people to leave in the first place. Is it supposed to be punishment? Retribution? Rehabilitative? Will taking away a life necessity like the roof over a person’s head make them more likely to behave to your requirements in the future? What if their inability to follow your rules is because of a brain injury, mental illness, or chemical dependency? Sometimes the argument raised by shelter providers is that they have dozens of other guests, as well as staff that they need to keep safe. In other words, they are willing to sacrifice the one for the many. But where is that person to go? If they die tonight because of circumstances related to not being sheltered, can you live with that on your conscience? A high performing shelter system of care ensures that there are some shelter beds for those that would otherwise not be able to conform to behavioural expectations elsewhere.

8. Is there any group of people we automatically disqualify from services?

There is no shortage of exclusionary criteria that one sees in shelter systems across the developed world. Sometimes it is a family shelter that does not accept teenage boys. Sometimes it is a shelter that does not appropriately engage or shelter people based upon their self-identified gender, and insist on supporting people based upon biological sex. Sometimes it is married couples that cannot sleep in the same shelter unless they can produce a marriage certificate. Sometimes it is registered sex offenders or sexual predators. And so on. If not your shelter, where is the person or family you are excluding supposed to be sheltered? And where there are very practical considerations (like, say, a father that cannot be in a family shelter because he is a sex offender and would violate the conditions of his release by being in proximity to certain people), do you have creative solutions like motels that you can activate solely for that purpose?

9. Do we have professional staff with suitable training?

Homelessness is maybe the only industry where we continue to confuse a big heart with a big head – that somehow if you care enough you are qualified. The argument usually goes that somebody has to do something, and better that untrained but sympathetic people do the work instead of nothing. And then we end up killing people with kindness or incompetence. This is akin to me finding busy emergency rooms and going to practice medicine at those places, even though I am not a medical doctor, because the wait times are too long and there are people suffering. Other shelters hire people that once used their shelter, but with no additional training. The thinking is that these people are experts in homelessness and sheltering because they have been homeless and stayed in shelter. That is like me saying I am qualified and should be able to surgically remove your gall bladder because I have had my gall bladder out. If shelters are going to do what they need to do to help end homelessness, they need to professionalize their staffing with the right training.

10. Do we measure what we do and make refinements based upon data?

Only three measures matter in sheltering: how long were people homeless; how many moved on to a positive housing destination; and, how many came back. When we focus on things like bed nights or meals served within the shelter, we are focusing on the wrong things. The measure of a shelter is how the shelter ends homelessness, not how busy it was in sheltering.

Signs of a Bad Shelter Proposal

Recently I was asked to provide commentary on a new shelter being proposed in Florida. Shelters are an important asset in ending homelessness when they are focused on helping people get into housing as quickly as possible. Every community needs an adequate number of shelter spaces relatively to the demands in their specific community. And in this Florida community, they have woefully few shelter beds and definitely need more.

While some may argue that a bad shelter is better than no shelter, I do not share that sentiment. When there is a new multi-million dollar capital investment on the table, probably best that it be done right.

Urban Planning

Urban planning should inform various aspects of sheltering. Place matters. Shelters should be proximate to the needs of the guests that are using the shelter. One cannot be expected to work on housing goals out of the shelter if they are far away from where rental accommodation is located, and/or, when there is insufficient public transportation near the shelter. “Out of sight, out of mind” may be the position of the elected officials approving the shelter siting, but the outcomes of the shelter will be much worse if the location chosen is disconnected from the urban fabric.

Housing Focus

A shelter should have the staffing necessary to have a housing focus. This means diverting people from shelter when it is safe and appropriate to do so; focusing on self-resolving homelessness through housing, especially for those that have not been in shelter before; and, dedicating more intensive resources to help with housing through rapid re-housing or permanent supportive housing for those that are stuck in shelter. When you look at the staffing for a shelter, it is a cause for concern when the number of staff dedicated to security exceeds the staff dedicated to housing and supporting shelter guests.

Furthermore, one must critically examine any and all other services being offered at the shelter, other than housing-focused services. Community gardens, financial education and behavioural health services may sound good, but they can also interfere with the urgency of moving on to housing.

Trauma-informed Design

Spaces must be designed for the people that will be served within them. Trauma-informed design places particular emphasis on things like lighting, matte colours, and open spaces, especially hallways and transition points. The space should be as predictable as possible, avoiding sharp corners where people may inadvertently surprise or bump into one another. Spaces should not be confining. Noise should be muted through adaptations to the walls. Dignity is reflected in the care and maintenance of the space where people dwell. A space not maintained well or in a terrible state of repair in essence is a reflection of how the building operator feels about the person within the space.

Within this particular shelter in Florida, renderings provided showed no signs of trauma-informed design. More emphasis seemed to be place on utility than care of the people that would use the facility. When people have experienced significant trauma, shouldn’t we go to greater lengths to make sure the place they are being sheltered does not make their trauma worse?

Three Major Reactions to Change

There are a handful of communities where the three major reactions to change are front and center in my work these days, and probably a healthy reminder to us all of how normal these reactions are:

1. React to the change

2. React to the process

3. React to the person

React to the change

The ideas presented do not jive/resonate with those impacted by the change. They don’t believe the change will work or are extremely cautious. If they have even a toe in the water, they tend to want more information and/or the opportunity to talk to another organization or person that has gone through the change and come out on the other side. Note, when viewing others that have gone through the change, it often comes with critiquing or coming up with reasons why what they have learned will not work in their organization/community. Special snowflakes avoid the heat.

React to the process

The way the change is communicated, the steps taken for the change, and/or, the timelines for the change are what people take exception to, and that can come back to try and stall the change, or rethink the change. Ultimately, people are starting to wonder if all the steps necessary to go through the change and come out on the other side, are worth the pain of getting there…especially when they are acting on faith that it is going to work in the end. “So, what difference will this make?” is a real question…give up what I know that I may acknowledge is imperfect to work on something I am told may be better but I have no proof it is going to work? And, “If I do agree this is worth it, is this the best way to get there?”

React to the person

If organizations are onboard with the change idea and process – or have been going along with it because leadership or funders have required it – the last ray of hope is to react to the person. The person(s) are too outspoken or too soft spoken; too old or too young; too professional or not professional enough; too serious or not serious enough; too involved in the day to day understanding of the work or too much of an outsider to understand the day to day work; too data driven or not data driven enough; too much swearing and real talk or not enough swearing and real talk; etc. The person may represent to those involved a great facilitator or a weak facilitator; a charismatic person or a boring person; an authentic person or a poser; a great communicator or a weak communicator; etc. The point is, by the time it gets to a reaction to the person, it is not about the substance of the change or even the process, but personification of the conflict of the change to the person.

The first reaction to any change, process or person is almost always emotional rather than logical - important to remember that. We can think that logic and evidence will win the day always. But the truth is, openness to experience and each person’s moral and values framework inform how they are going to react to the change process. We discuss these sorts of things at the Leadership Academy, and cover these types of experiences at the Learning Clinics. There are no easy answers, but probably best that you deepen your understanding of how people respond to change so that you can help people navigate through the change.

Important & Ready

Whether you are trying to make change within yourself, your organization, or your community there are two critical success factors that must be addressed if you are going to achieve what you set out to achieve. The first is whether or not people feel the change is important. The second is whether or not people are ready for the change.

The importance of making a change is ultimately a personal decision, driven by our own values and beliefs, whether we are open to new information and methods, how we process information, and whether or not we are engaged in other ways of doing things we deem to be more important than the new proposed change. The importance of making change is not easily persuaded by logical arguments. In fact, the importance of change is felt at an emotional level. Take smokers for example. Some of the smartest people I know are smokers. It isn’t that they don’t understand the link between smoking and health. It is that it is not important enough for them to change their behaviour. Deep inside, the importance of change comes down to whether the gains of making the change are important enough to overcome the pains of making the change.

How ready a person, organization, or community is to make change is not easy to measure, per se, yet critical for the change to actually occur. We sometimes thing one more committee or one more study will make people more ready. Like importance, readiness comes down to a personal, emotional response to change. Am I ready to let go of the status quo when I am uncertain of the future? Even when I am sure the end result will have benefits, am I willing to go through stretches of ambiguity, frustration, and confusion to get to that place?

I would suggest that we need more conversations about how people feel, in addition to the conversations about data, evidence, and practice. I would suggest we need to create environments where people are free to express their emotions without fear of reprise. I think we need less coercion and a greater emotional appreciation of personal goals and values.

I would also suggest that when people raise excuses about why change is not possible we drive the conversation back to importance and readiness, even on an emotional level. Take for example resources. Many communities or organizations will say that they cannot change because they lack resources. But the issue is rarely one of resources and almost always one of resourcefulness. If the change is important and they are ready, they will find ways to use existing resources differently and problem solve to fill the gaps in resources that are necessary for doing the right thing.

Lastly for this blog, I would remind you that we should never underestimate an organizations desire for self preservation. Regardless of whether people within the organization can agree that change in the community is important and that the community is ready for change, they will go to great lengths to make sure their organization continues, even if they are not aligned to the new way of doing business. It is a classic case of the “yes, buts” – yes, we agree that change is necessary, but we don’t believe that we should have to change. This means we likely need to spend time ensuring all organizations are engaged with the importance of the big picture, and are ready to put their organization into the fray to be part of that change, rather than seeing themselves as immune to change and insisting others change around them.

2017 – What Will it Bring?

Welcome to the first blog of 2017. As I do every year, I want to kick off the first blog of the year with things that concern me and some hope for the year ahead.

Three things that concern me – and may concern you too…

That resistance to change means not doing the right thing.

Resistance is real. Star Trek would tell us it is futile. But that doesn’t seem to be true. On the one hand, people love the hypothetical of change, but go to great lengths to avoid the actions of getting there. On the other hand, there are those that – even with overwhelming data to the contrary – hold on to their views and diligently practice cognitive dissonance. When it comes down to measuring the amount of pain to the amount to be gained, person after person and organization after organization seems to struggle with working through the conflict and turmoil that can come with making change. I get that. Change sucks.

What pains me is when the resistance to change results in meetings rather than action. What pains me is when people want guarantees of success without even putting forth an effort to achieve change. What pains me is that those that are impacted most by our reluctance to change is an absent voice in discerning whether to change in the first place.

When the resistance to change means that we do not do the right things – as hard as it may be to implement those things – it is our selfishness that trumps our capacity to see the greater good.

That the unknown in politics distracts us from doing the right thing.

No one has a crystal ball to know how the political arena is going to fully impact the work that happens on the frontline. It seems wasted energy to me to guess how Ben Carson as HUD Secretary will change the homelessness landscape. People talk of “preparing” for what is to come, but that sounds like a lot of guess work when there is no way to know what we are actually preparing for, and what it will mean.

Once we have information and know how policy and programs and funding may change, then there is the opportunity for organization and mobilization IF it is warranted. I am at a loss to console or even help those that I know have been losing sleep and fretting about the changes that MAY be ahead – even when they are many steps removed from the decision-making and immediate impacts. Anxiety at this level is not going to make us more effective advocates.

That we focus too much on what seems to be barriers and become paralyzed by it.

We have problems. Everyone. I have never been to any place in the world that claims to have enough affordable housing or enough supportive housing. I have never been to a place that claims to have the right amount of money or staff. I have never been to a place that has the perfect politics or the perfect leadership. I have never been to a place that claims assistance rates are excellent or that other systems like health or justice are amazing at integrating with the homeless service delivery system.

What I have seen it community after community that uses these as reasons to not take action.

Work the problem. Coming around tables to talk about what cannot be done solves nothing. Repeatedly naming barriers without the courage to take risks to overcome the barriers is painful to watch. Too often we are long on excuses and short on a desire to try to make change happen.

We need to spend more time figuring out how to do the best possible work with the resources we do have in the environment we do work in rather than wasting time wishing someone else will create a utopia at some point.

Three things that give me hope – and maybe provide you hope too…

That we take time and invest in learning.

I see 2017 as the year for learning. It is dominating a huge amount of my time to read more, learn more and analyze our practices and training. But it is also a huge part of what we are trying to engage communities in for 2017. That is why we established the OrgCode Learning Clinics for this year, and are partnering with the likes of Community Solutions and the National Alliance to End Homelessness to deliver different parts of the content at some of the sessions.

If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always got. If you do the same thing over and over again but expect different results, well Einstein himself would tell you that is insanity. But we cannot just flip an imaginary switch and assume we will change our practice and get different results without committing to learning how to do things differently.

I know some organizations and communities see training as a luxury. In this age of considerable change, the investment is a necessity.

That big change is possible and yields results.

When change is happening on a large scale and yielding results, I think we need to see these as hopeful developments – even when they occur in places other than where you might live and practice. So, when places like Los Angeles pass proposition HHH, don’t be jealous that your community has not passed (or even had) a ballot measure for housing. Learn from it and replicate in a way that is appropriate for where you live. When organizations and communities – like those I have highlighted in previous blogs – see decreases in homelessness that are sustainable and a direct result of the hard work in making change happen, don’t be jealous or say “that will never happen here”. Instead ask yourself how you can feel some of the warmth of their light from their beacon of hope. Anytime a person or organization would want me to believe that change is impossible, I think of those places that have put forth the Herculean effort to work problems, realign resources and get results – and I know that big change is possible.

Leadership.

For a couple years this has been a focus of my attention – how do we create leaders within the homelessness and housing services sector? What I am really hopeful for in 2017 is that I increasingly witness the impact of those people and communities that have taken the time to invest in leadership. Why? Because I see brave change and results. Why? Because I see changed conversations and reframing of issues that have plagued some groups for decades. Why? Because we are tangibly seeing the difference between managing contracts and leading an end to homelessness.

I think 2017 will be the year of more people stepping up into leadership. I am looking forward to holding another Leadership Academy (this time in Grand Bend, Ontario, Canada at the end of March) and conducting another Master Class in Leadership (a return to Scottsdale, Arizona in the fall). I am looking forward to some already planned work with Boards of Directors and Executive Leadership teams. I am looking forward to some already booked staff retreats and reinvigorating a work force to achieve excellence. I am looking forward to the Executive Coaching I do for leaders this year, and helping them achieve personal growth and lead change in their organization and community.

To me, leadership is about being awesome. That means we embrace the privilege of inspiring awe in others. May 2017 be the year where the risks we take to achieve greater results in ending homelessness are worthy of the highest esteem of those we have the privilege to serve.

See you around this year.

The Best of 2016

That time of the year to look back on the highlights from the year before. There are many for us at OrgCode. So, I am focusing on those 10 things where we felt we had the greatest impact or the community really look a leap forward in ending homelessness, or events I just can’t keep smiling about when thinking about it.

Hawaii

Hawaii is a beautiful place to work, but it is also struggling with homelessness in some very unique ways based upon geography, politics, and the change process overall. So what has stood out for me so much in positive ways? The first is a group called HousingASAP. With the involvement and investment of the Hawaii Community Foundation, leaders in family homelessness are working with a dedicated consultant who is awesome – Liza Culick – to transform how they lead and change. We (OrgCode) have been so fortunate to be involved in providing some technical input to the group, and deliver some bootcamps on various subjects related to family homelessness. The second, which happens through HousingASAP, is our involvement in designing, implementing and supporting coordinated entry for families across all of the islands. Third, I have loved staying involved with Hope Services, which is a dynamic, brave organization on the Big Island. They have allowed us to work with them in transforming their service delivery top to bottom to focus on ending homelessness, and have radically altered some of their practices in the process. Finally, it has been awesome to have Bridging the Gap (the CoC shared across Kauai, Maui and the Big Island) invite me to do some training and systems work across their communities, as well as lead coordinated entry for singles on those islands. While Oahu still has its challenges, and there remains much to be hopeful about in Hawaii.

The Master Class

The group that went through the Leadership Academy in 2015 were invited to the Master Class in 2016 in Arizona. It was amazing to see so many people return and grow deeper in their knowledge of leadership as it applies to ending homelessness. I was challenged and humbled by the honour of preparing and delivering the materials. The more I lead others in understanding and using leadership skills, I grow deeper in my self awareness and opportunities for growth.

Leadership Academy II

If you build it, will they come again? Turns out, they do indeed. We had another sold out Leadership Academy in West Virginia this year. I feel I got all the kinks worked out from the previous year and sharpened the content and delivery. It was an honour that so many people from Australia, Canada and the United States wanted to show up and develop their leadership skills further to help their pursuit of ending homelessness.

The OrgCode Team

We expanded the OrgCode team this year, and I am so excited that talented people want to help us engage and transform other communities in ending homelessness. Erin Wixsten and David Tweedie joined us full time. Zach Brown, Amanda Sisson, Mike Shore, and Kris Freed became “bench players” who still have their day job but help out on specific projects that we are working on. Never did I think such an awesome group would want to come together under the OrgCode umbrella. We can offer way more talent to communities, and I grow deeper in my skill set too. Jeff Standell continues to offer a steady hand to most training. The OrgCode team really functions because Tracy Flaherty-Willmott is my right hand and keeps me challenged, organized, growing, and happy.

Michigan State Conference

This was, in my opinion, the best keynote I ever delivered. It was honest. It was raw. And I know it was transformative to many in attendance because to this day I get random emails telling me how they continue to go about transforming programs and policies based upon the things I said and shared.

Launch Housing 

Being in Australia is always a lovely thing, even when Melbourne is damn cold. Working with Launch was one of the highlights of my year because I see the amazing opportunity and transformation happening within a rather incredible organization. And I met some amazing people and deepened my knowledge of others. People like Heather Holst, who is the Deputy CEO, are an incredible inspiration.

Crossroads Rhode Island

I have blogged and bragged about this organization before, but 2016 they stepped up to the plate again in a new way. As they took over a large shelter from another organization, I was moved deeply as I saw how an organization like Crossroads living its values can almost instantaneously transform the culture of another program. I also loved how they can lean into complexity to take on the next challenge without having all of the answers first, and in living that bravery, be so focused on solving problems rather than making excuses for them. I’d have to say that Crossroads does housing-focused shelter about the best I have ever seen.

Shreveport and Lafayette, LA

There are reasons that these two cities are lumped together, and they are personal. At least once a year I take my eldest (10) on a road trip with me to understand what Dad does for a living. This was our second time in Louisiana. In Lafayette, the great people at Catholics Services of Acadiana created meaningful, appropriate engagement for my son in ways that helped him know me better. In Shreveport, he deepened his understanding of HOPE Connections, plus saw one of his buddies from a previous trip. Let’s also be clear that Louisiana is an awesome place to be if you are 10 and into alligators and other critters (READ – SWAMP TOUR WAS AMAZING!)

Hamilton

Hamilton, Ontario is close to where I call home. Going there means I can wake up in my own bed, and I like that. But what I like more is how they are using professional development to drive through their approach to changing services. I am grateful I get to spend so much time delivering training in the community and helping service providers grow in their knowledge and applicability of very practical ways to improve housing outcomes. I am a better person for knowing leaders like Amanda who lead and manage change in such a brave manner.

Region of Waterloo

The Region of Waterloo exemplifies system thinking in ending homelessness and is perhaps the best example I can think this year of when it comes to municipal public service leadership in driving a policy and service agenda that is transforming homeless services to have a housing focus. Marie and Angela inspire me with their dedication to change over the long-term, and their approach to incubating new programming in different parts of the Region to get lasting service results.