by Nancy Peters
The idea of a 24 hour “rest and resource center” for people experiencing homelessness was
brought to the public’s awareness over two years ago, by Mayor Hancock, City
Councilman Albus Brooks and others, during hearings leading up to the passage of Denver’s unauthorized camping ordinance. “We know there is a shortage of resources,” said Hancock. “I believe what this ordinance will do is help us focus even more sharply on helping develop these resources.” And Brooks echoed this sentiment, insisting in a Denver Post Op-Ed piece that “The ordinance provides accountability and enables us to leverage our position with the business community to build upon existing assets and infrastructure.”
I think both Hancock and Brooks want us to believe that an ordinance which punishes homeless people for sleeping-an act of survival--was somehow needed in order to get the mayor and other city officials off their existing assets and do their jobs. Doing their jobs includes, at the least, making such absolute necessities as affordable permanent housing,
decent temporary housing and related services a reality so that 11,000 homeless people in the Denver metro area can both be safe and get off the streets, and not-yet-homeless people
can NOT become homeless.
So, what essential services is this all-important 24 Hour R&R Center, touted by Brooks as “the first of its kind in the city,” supposed to deliver to homeless people? And, after two and a half years, what is its status? Well, apart from a “final” report from the task force which Brooks assembled to work on the project, outlining how the R&R Center might operate, it does not exist whatsoever. Milliner and task force members (mostly from the service provider community) explain that the hang-up is the place. Apparently no one whose opinion counts
in this matter wants the center in their neighborhood. Those whose opinions count include housed people and the “business community” with whom city government is “leveraging our position” (read “buying them off our back”) by passing the camping ban.
Those whose opinions do NOT seem to count include the unhoused people for whom the center is to be built. Although in so many ways they are the “experts” on what services they
need, and how these services can most effectively be provided, there is a dearth of homeless people on the task force. (Randle Loeb, a strong advocate for homeless people’s rights and with a long history of homelessness himself, is on the task force.)
City officials have leaked that a place has been found, and that it is “far outside downtown,” but they have not yet identified the location. One rumor puts it somewhere on south Federal Boulevard, miles from the downtown area where homeless folks find services such as shelters, free meals, employment assistance, and health care. This rumor has caused many to wonder
how people would get back and forth, whether transportation will be provided, and
whether the aim might be to “disappear” homeless people from the downtown area-perhaps
forcibly, with the aid of squad cars. (When people are kept in the dark about projects
that will affect their lives, rumors will abound.)
What is this R&R thing that businesses and housed people don’t want in their neighborhood? As stated in the “Final Report for the Work Group” on the center, the initial concept included a 150-bed shelter (which would have made sense, since there is a serious lack of shelter beds even while the camping ban has outlawed sleeping outside), but “adding a shelter element does increase the difficulty in identifying a location within the siting and density requirements of the existing zoning code.” Translation: by placing severe restrictions on where needed
overnight shelters and other homeless service centers can be located (and thereby preventing the sight of too many “unsavory characters” from supposedly keeping customers away and residents on edge), our city’s zoning code reinforces the desires and preferences of the housed and business communities, at the expense of the survival needs of the unhoused.
In highlighting the increasing need for a 24-hour drop-in shelter, the report states that “While the need to secure the business climate and private residences is a concern, the need to provide alternative
solutions for those affected by the new [urban camping ban] ordinance is of equal
concern.” Presumably this statement implies that the camping ban was passed to “secure the business climate and private residences” against homeless people sleeping outside. But the camping ban CANNOT keep people from sleeping outside, given that realistic alternatives
don’t exist for many homeless people, who MUST and WILL sleep somewhere.
So, if this 24 hour center will not provide shelter beds, or affordable housing, what “alternative solutions” for those affected by the camping ban WILL it provide? According to the “final” report, it will be open 24 hours to allow a safe place out of the elements “for those who choose
not to access regular shelters”--but they will not be allowed to lie down and sleep. So one can’t help wonder: Why, except in extreme weather, would unhoused people, who have already “chosen” not to go to an overnight shelter (i.e. they couldn’t get in or couldn’t stomach the idea--could you?) opt to go to a place where they can’t sleep, rather than just sleep outside--unless they were coerced?
Has anyone on the task force done any “field research” (i.e., asked homeless people) about this? And, given what is known about the importance of sleep to a person’s physical and mental health, how can anyone purporting to advocate for homeless people possibly
support a plan for a center which lets people in at midnight or 2am, but does not
allow them to sleep? (Let’s not forget that this scheme was tried at the St Francis
Center some ten years ago, and it WAS PRETTY AWFUL.)
A key feature of the proposal is its “two
tier” service delivery system. The center is
to offer “basic drop-in services” (to include
such things as showers, telephones, laundry
service, limited storage, and mail/internet
access) to all guests. Beyond that, through
a “coordinated entry and assessment
system,” everyone would be screened to
determine whether they are ready and
willing to end their homelessness or not.
11
Those guests who are assessed to
have “the ability and desire to move into a
more stable and long-term living situation”
would be welcomed into Tier 2, which
allows them to work with a case manager
“to participate fully in the rigors of the path
to stability.” Case managed services would
include assistance in obtaining benefi ts,
legal support, mental and behavioral health
“administration” and employment (“if able”).
“Ultimately, the [Tier 2] guest will move
from transitional to permanent housing,
then on to full self-suffi ciency.”
Sounds great. But has anyone who
signed off on this report actually considered
the educational credentials, work
background, and skills--not to mention the
willingness and/or ability to conform to the
social norms of mainstream society--that
are needed to achieve “full self suffi ciency”
in today’s economy? And is no one
who worked on this report aware of the
appalling lack of affordable housing, which
no amount of “ability and desire” to become
housed can overcome? As Thomas Wakute
said in a recent email to Get Loud, “Don’t
even ask me to work anymore because
there is nothing involving a residence on
the end of that paycheck.” So the word
“rigors” applied to the path to stability is
certainly a gross understatement.
Meanwhile, those NOT determined
to have such “ability and desire” would
be assigned to Tier 1, where they can
be warm, use computers, get mail, drink
coffee, hang out--but would not engage in
more intensive services.
The system sounds judgmental and
dismissive toward those assessed to be
Tier 1 material. But perhaps it isn’t meant
to be. Without having an explanation from
CONT’D ON PG.1
he system’s designers, let’s assume the best--that what
they meant to convey is that, while at any given time some
would be actively engaged in services toward housing
stability and others would not, the goal would be for
everyone to be engaged at some point. Let’s assume that
the R&R Center staff would continually be offering hope,
encouragement and services to all guests in an effort
to help them improve their lives--recognizing that each
person’s “readiness for change” is constantly in fl ux--that
someone “not ready” today may be “ready” next week or
next month.
How about ASKING the homeless?
We should assume only the best intentions from the
24 Hour R&R task force members, many of whom, in the
words of city spokesperson Jamie Bradwell, “have daily
contact with the homeless, advocate for the homeless
every day or have personally struggled with episodes
of homelessness. They are extremely knowledgeable
about the issue and fi nding supportive ways to help the
homeless fi nd permanent, supportive housing.”
This is what Ms. Bradwell said when asked whether
the input of people experiencing homelessness had been
obtained and incorporated into the center proposal.
But no matter how much service providers interact with
the recipients of those services, their perspective is bound
to be different from that of the people who are actually
experiencing homelessness and KNOW WHAT THEY
NEED.
So I have a different proposal for the task force: How
about actually ASKING those who are homeless what
assistance they need most, and how that help can best be
provided? If you do this in good faith, demonstrating that
what homeless folks say really matters and will be taken
seriously--I am convinced that what you hear will surprise
you. And if you really listen, and design a service system
around what you learn, I believe what you end up with
will be truly unique in its ability to make a difference in the
lives of people experiencing homelessness.
seriously--I am convinced that what you hear will surprise
you. And if you really listen, and design a service system
around what you learn, I believe what you end up with
will be truly unique in its ability to make a difference in the
lives of people experiencing homelessne
brought to the public’s awareness over two years ago, by Mayor Hancock, City
Councilman Albus Brooks and others, during hearings leading up to the passage of Denver’s unauthorized camping ordinance. “We know there is a shortage of resources,” said Hancock. “I believe what this ordinance will do is help us focus even more sharply on helping develop these resources.” And Brooks echoed this sentiment, insisting in a Denver Post Op-Ed piece that “The ordinance provides accountability and enables us to leverage our position with the business community to build upon existing assets and infrastructure.”
I think both Hancock and Brooks want us to believe that an ordinance which punishes homeless people for sleeping-an act of survival--was somehow needed in order to get the mayor and other city officials off their existing assets and do their jobs. Doing their jobs includes, at the least, making such absolute necessities as affordable permanent housing,
decent temporary housing and related services a reality so that 11,000 homeless people in the Denver metro area can both be safe and get off the streets, and not-yet-homeless people
can NOT become homeless.
So, what essential services is this all-important 24 Hour R&R Center, touted by Brooks as “the first of its kind in the city,” supposed to deliver to homeless people? And, after two and a half years, what is its status? Well, apart from a “final” report from the task force which Brooks assembled to work on the project, outlining how the R&R Center might operate, it does not exist whatsoever. Milliner and task force members (mostly from the service provider community) explain that the hang-up is the place. Apparently no one whose opinion counts
in this matter wants the center in their neighborhood. Those whose opinions count include housed people and the “business community” with whom city government is “leveraging our position” (read “buying them off our back”) by passing the camping ban.
Those whose opinions do NOT seem to count include the unhoused people for whom the center is to be built. Although in so many ways they are the “experts” on what services they
need, and how these services can most effectively be provided, there is a dearth of homeless people on the task force. (Randle Loeb, a strong advocate for homeless people’s rights and with a long history of homelessness himself, is on the task force.)
City officials have leaked that a place has been found, and that it is “far outside downtown,” but they have not yet identified the location. One rumor puts it somewhere on south Federal Boulevard, miles from the downtown area where homeless folks find services such as shelters, free meals, employment assistance, and health care. This rumor has caused many to wonder
how people would get back and forth, whether transportation will be provided, and
whether the aim might be to “disappear” homeless people from the downtown area-perhaps
forcibly, with the aid of squad cars. (When people are kept in the dark about projects
that will affect their lives, rumors will abound.)
What is this R&R thing that businesses and housed people don’t want in their neighborhood? As stated in the “Final Report for the Work Group” on the center, the initial concept included a 150-bed shelter (which would have made sense, since there is a serious lack of shelter beds even while the camping ban has outlawed sleeping outside), but “adding a shelter element does increase the difficulty in identifying a location within the siting and density requirements of the existing zoning code.” Translation: by placing severe restrictions on where needed
overnight shelters and other homeless service centers can be located (and thereby preventing the sight of too many “unsavory characters” from supposedly keeping customers away and residents on edge), our city’s zoning code reinforces the desires and preferences of the housed and business communities, at the expense of the survival needs of the unhoused.
In highlighting the increasing need for a 24-hour drop-in shelter, the report states that “While the need to secure the business climate and private residences is a concern, the need to provide alternative
solutions for those affected by the new [urban camping ban] ordinance is of equal
concern.” Presumably this statement implies that the camping ban was passed to “secure the business climate and private residences” against homeless people sleeping outside. But the camping ban CANNOT keep people from sleeping outside, given that realistic alternatives
don’t exist for many homeless people, who MUST and WILL sleep somewhere.
So, if this 24 hour center will not provide shelter beds, or affordable housing, what “alternative solutions” for those affected by the camping ban WILL it provide? According to the “final” report, it will be open 24 hours to allow a safe place out of the elements “for those who choose
not to access regular shelters”--but they will not be allowed to lie down and sleep. So one can’t help wonder: Why, except in extreme weather, would unhoused people, who have already “chosen” not to go to an overnight shelter (i.e. they couldn’t get in or couldn’t stomach the idea--could you?) opt to go to a place where they can’t sleep, rather than just sleep outside--unless they were coerced?
Has anyone on the task force done any “field research” (i.e., asked homeless people) about this? And, given what is known about the importance of sleep to a person’s physical and mental health, how can anyone purporting to advocate for homeless people possibly
support a plan for a center which lets people in at midnight or 2am, but does not
allow them to sleep? (Let’s not forget that this scheme was tried at the St Francis
Center some ten years ago, and it WAS PRETTY AWFUL.)
A key feature of the proposal is its “two
tier” service delivery system. The center is
to offer “basic drop-in services” (to include
such things as showers, telephones, laundry
service, limited storage, and mail/internet
access) to all guests. Beyond that, through
a “coordinated entry and assessment
system,” everyone would be screened to
determine whether they are ready and
willing to end their homelessness or not.
11
Those guests who are assessed to
have “the ability and desire to move into a
more stable and long-term living situation”
would be welcomed into Tier 2, which
allows them to work with a case manager
“to participate fully in the rigors of the path
to stability.” Case managed services would
include assistance in obtaining benefi ts,
legal support, mental and behavioral health
“administration” and employment (“if able”).
“Ultimately, the [Tier 2] guest will move
from transitional to permanent housing,
then on to full self-suffi ciency.”
Sounds great. But has anyone who
signed off on this report actually considered
the educational credentials, work
background, and skills--not to mention the
willingness and/or ability to conform to the
social norms of mainstream society--that
are needed to achieve “full self suffi ciency”
in today’s economy? And is no one
who worked on this report aware of the
appalling lack of affordable housing, which
no amount of “ability and desire” to become
housed can overcome? As Thomas Wakute
said in a recent email to Get Loud, “Don’t
even ask me to work anymore because
there is nothing involving a residence on
the end of that paycheck.” So the word
“rigors” applied to the path to stability is
certainly a gross understatement.
Meanwhile, those NOT determined
to have such “ability and desire” would
be assigned to Tier 1, where they can
be warm, use computers, get mail, drink
coffee, hang out--but would not engage in
more intensive services.
The system sounds judgmental and
dismissive toward those assessed to be
Tier 1 material. But perhaps it isn’t meant
to be. Without having an explanation from
CONT’D ON PG.1
he system’s designers, let’s assume the best--that what
they meant to convey is that, while at any given time some
would be actively engaged in services toward housing
stability and others would not, the goal would be for
everyone to be engaged at some point. Let’s assume that
the R&R Center staff would continually be offering hope,
encouragement and services to all guests in an effort
to help them improve their lives--recognizing that each
person’s “readiness for change” is constantly in fl ux--that
someone “not ready” today may be “ready” next week or
next month.
How about ASKING the homeless?
We should assume only the best intentions from the
24 Hour R&R task force members, many of whom, in the
words of city spokesperson Jamie Bradwell, “have daily
contact with the homeless, advocate for the homeless
every day or have personally struggled with episodes
of homelessness. They are extremely knowledgeable
about the issue and fi nding supportive ways to help the
homeless fi nd permanent, supportive housing.”
This is what Ms. Bradwell said when asked whether
the input of people experiencing homelessness had been
obtained and incorporated into the center proposal.
But no matter how much service providers interact with
the recipients of those services, their perspective is bound
to be different from that of the people who are actually
experiencing homelessness and KNOW WHAT THEY
NEED.
So I have a different proposal for the task force: How
about actually ASKING those who are homeless what
assistance they need most, and how that help can best be
provided? If you do this in good faith, demonstrating that
what homeless folks say really matters and will be taken
seriously--I am convinced that what you hear will surprise
you. And if you really listen, and design a service system
around what you learn, I believe what you end up with
will be truly unique in its ability to make a difference in the
lives of people experiencing homelessness.
seriously--I am convinced that what you hear will surprise
you. And if you really listen, and design a service system
around what you learn, I believe what you end up with
will be truly unique in its ability to make a difference in the
lives of people experiencing homelessne