Homeless in Abbotsford, BC

I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, WOULD NOT ever suggest throwing money at a problem. I am a REALIST, believing in examining a problem to understand what the situation IS. I am not an Ideologue who, wearing the blinders of ideology, looks at a situation and sees what they want to see, not what really is. There is NO perfect solution. A system dealing with people demands flexibility and denies neat, easy answers. Rigidly applying Ideology guarantees failure. How I came to homelessness: click Backstory below.

0 comments Published Thursday, February 28, 2008 by James W Breckenridge.

Picture worth more than words -
in shining light on City's Mickey Mouse Behaviours

Below is the photo of the board at Abbotsford Recreation Centre (week of February 25, 2008) that the Abbotsford Parks and Rec department needed so badly for advertising and promoting their programs that they HAD to take over the board used for posting community announcements and upcoming events.

Below is the photo of the smaller board put in for the community to use – after public complaints about Parks and Rec actions were made to council. Fortunately inquiries by the mayor resulted in the new board going in immediately instead of at some indefinite time in the future as Parks and Rec stated would/could happen.

Now, Parks and Rec desperately needed the board for what exactly?

Parks and Rec has the big board and the small board is for community announcements because … …Parks and Rec felt like it or that this is the way it is done in Abbotsford?

And City hall wonders why people think they pay no attention to taxpayers needs or customer service/satisfaction.

0 comments Published Sunday, February 24, 2008 by James W Breckenridge.

Non-professional behaviour -
by the Abbotsaford Police Department

I have again been again told of actions by the Abbotsford Police Department that suggests they have a different standard of treatment for the homeless; which is both unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour.

One of the homeless approached me today to relate an incident that occurred with the Abbotsford Police Department. Someone, who was not themselves homeless but works with the homeless, had suggested to him that if he spoke to me I could write about it and perhaps something may come of that. Several other members of the homeless community spoke to me about this incident as well.

It says something rather disturbing about the behaviours of the APD and the City of Abbotsford that in an incident where it was felt an injustice was done, the only recourse that was felt to be open to the homeless was through my writing. How would you feel if your only recourse for unjust treatment was something posted on homelessinabbotsford.com and sent as a letter to the editor on the off chance it may be published and questions asked? I find that reality disturbing.

As the story goes someone phoned the police to say he was physically abusing the woman he was with.

He said that previously someone who had an issue with him chose to cause him problems by telling the APD that he was an abuser of woman. Although no charges were ever laid the APD has him on record as an abuser and he feels treats him unfavourably and with physical roughness because of this.

I do not know the truth of this earlier problem as I lack the resources to investigate and it is not my job to ascertain the truth of this matter, one way or the other. It is the job, the duty, of the APD to have found out if he was an abuser or if the other person was merely using (or should that be abusing?) the APD for revenge. It is the job of the APD to make that determination, particularly if their treatment of this man is going to be based on that claim.

The facts I do know about this recent incident is that when the police arrived the couple were nowhere near each other. That the woman stated there was no physical abuse (a statement she also made to me) and that if someone had made such a report, they had mistaken the horseplay going on for an assault.

The police promptly ignored what they were told by both him and her. They handcuffed him, handling this roughly enough to leave his wrist bruised, and tossed him in a cell for 15 hours. No charges were filed and he was released and left to walk home. Her they just dumped at the Emergency Shelter.

I would never claim this person is a saint. I can say I have known him several years and never seen any behaviour of abuse to women. But the real reason for doubting he was physically assaulting her is that I have also known her for several years and in a physical confrontation I would be betting my money on her.

They are homeless and even if not exactly upstanding or outstanding citizens they have the right to be treated with professionalism, fairness and courtesy. We (and they) are Canadians living in Abbotsford not citizens of North Korea. The APD needs to be reminded of that fact and required to respect the rights of all citizens, including the homeless.

0 comments Published Wednesday, February 20, 2008 by James W Breckenridge.

One size does not fit all.

BC Housing is in the process of forcing the Emergency Shelter in Abbotsford to switch to a 24/7 (hours/days) schedule and adopt operational policies dictated by BC Housing.

This change will have negative consequences not only on the shelter operations but upon all other programs offered at the Centre of Hope.

Why should Abbotsford be concerned? The homeless are part of our community and actions that have negative consequences upon them will in turn have negative effects upon the community as a whole.

The concern is not that BC Housing has come up with a new homeless program to be implemented through the shelters in BC, but rather that it is being imposed on all shelters without considering if the new policies are appropriate for a given shelter and/or location. They are forcing even shelters not wanting to run on the 24/7 basis, for good sound reasons, to run 24/7 – or they will not get any funding. Either the Emergency Shelter runs under their program or Abbotsford loses its shelter funding.

Since the new policy comes with increased funding, one would think that BC Housing would recognize that there must be serious concerns about the negative effects on some of the shelters for them to seek to not receive more money. Unfortunately BC Housing has not shown any evidence that they are interested in whether there are good reasons to not change shelter operations. Rather they are blindly forcing all shelters to change, ignoring that “one size fits all” policies often have very negative consequences for those of odd size.

For communities with multiple shelters, for larger shelters and shelters with separate entrances the new policy is doable.

The emergency shelter is the only shelter in Abbotsford/Mission, it is small – actually totally inadequate in size for the increasing demand for shelter space and it shares the entrance path with the majority of other programs. In fact the shelter space is used during the day for other programs.

I want to be very clear that the concern is not with the new shelter policy itself, but that due to the size and location of Abbotsford’s emergency shelter implementing it will have negative results that will far outweigh any benefits, causing a great deal of damage and hardship to the people the policy is suppose to help.

The concept behind the new policy is good. What is lacking for the new shelter policy to be solidly successful, is the other programs needed to follow upon and provide support for the homeless to transition out of the shelter system and into more (and increasingly) stable housing. The government has put up a doorframe and door as an entrance point but they have failed to build the rest of the structure needed to provide a home to the homeless. But that is an argument for another time.

As stated I like the concept behind the new shelter policy initiative. However I think that the specific physical reality of the Abbotsford emergency shelter makes it totally unsuitable to running 24/7. Forcing the shelter to run under the new 24/7 rules will have many negative consequences far outweighing any possible benefits.

Addressing homelessness requires participation by the community. In this case what is needed is for members of the community of Abbotsford to contact our local MLA’s Mike de Jong (mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca), John van Dongen (john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca) Minister Rich Coleman (rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca) and Premier Gordon Campbell (gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca) asking for their help in getting BC Housing to continue to fund the emergency shelter under its current operations rather than forcing a change with negative outcomes upon the shelter.

It would not hurt to ask them to see if there are any other shelters that will be or are being negatively impacted by being forced to adopt new operational behaviours and policies.

0 comments Published Tuesday, February 12, 2008 by James W Breckenridge.

Asking in order to evaluate or create recovery based programs

When I was looking to find a new mechanic I asked 4 or 5 people for their recommendations. It turned out there was one garage they all recommended and that was where I went. It has proved a very good choice and when asked about where I go to have my auto cared for I do not hesitate to recommend them myself.

When I wanted to know about mechanics I asked those who used them; for who better to make judgments about the capability of the mechanics? An intelligent approach that is applicable to evaluate effectiveness in a variety of applications and circumstances.

Why is then, that the government does not ask for the input of those who use the programs and services?

This question came to mind recently as I offered to write (and wrote) a letter to those involved in making the decision about continuing funding to a mental health program. I wrote in the context of someone who had been a client of the program and knew how important the program was in my continuing journey of recovery.

This is an important point because it is my experience that a substantial barrier to recovery is that often those making the funding decisions and judging the programs do not seek the opinions or input of the people in the best position to judge program efficacy – those using the programs in their personal recovery.

This is of particular importance with programs such as this one where the most important, and to often overlooked or not appreciated, benefits to the clients are not easily or at all quantifiable. This is an employment oriented program but my experience, and that of other clients (users) of the program, was that the support offered to people by the program was far more important and useful in recovery than the “job” side was.

It is easy to come up with numbers for the “job” side of the program, but how do you quantify the support provided by the program? And yet … my personal experience and observation is that without support recovery is not possible and that lack of support leads to relapse. Indeed there is no doubt in my mind that had I not been fortunate enough to find the program I would not have made the progress I have.

The program provided support at a time when I was most vulnerable and in need of support. I wrote in support of the program to ensure that those in need of support would be able to find the support to find their path to recovery.

Yet it is only by asking those such as me that someone evaluating the program would be aware of this aspect of the program and how important it is.

Asking also needs to apply in awarding contracts to provide services. I have seen and experienced, on several different occasions, the fallout of the current process the government uses for awarding contracts. And while in some cases the contract needed to be awarded elsewhere, in others it turned a useful resource/program into something that was of benefit only to those awarded the contract.

Auditors general have a term of reference involving “value for money”, as in are we getting our monies worth? That is the question that should be poised when making contract awards. And you make that judgment by asking the people who use the programs and services. I mean ask directly. I have been involved with programs where client feedback was part of the program, through the contractor. Fox guarding the henhouse.

This concept of asking clients or users what they think is also needed in establishing new programs. It is through experience that one learns what the real needs are, which are often different from what would appear to be or theoretically be the needs.

It is easy to “sell” the concept of an employment program, much harder to convince someone that a program offering support is truly needed if those needing this support are to every have an opportunity to be employed. Yet support is a fundament or key concept in recovery.

It is a major frustration that so many politicians, experts and others “know” what needs to be done for a variety of problems that require some form of recovery, without ever asking the people who need and or are seeking recovery. This “knowledge” leads to programs that are pointless, that fail to provide what is truly needed for recovery, that fail to provide what is their stated purpose to provide and waste millions of taxpayer $$$.

Yes we need ideas from as wide a source as possible, for having lots of ideas is the best way to ensure having good ideas. But to evaluate what is a good idea, what is needed, what programs are effective or which providers do an excellent job we need to ask and listen to those who need and /or use the programs.

If our goal is to provide the programs and services needed for people to move into and follow the path to recovery we need to be sure that we ask those whose life experience has provided them with understanding and insight into recovery and what is needed for recovery for their input. Then listen and pay attention to what those in recovery or in need of recovery say, and be willing to act on their input.

Homelessness, mental illness, addiction, poverty are all issues we face, but can address if we so choose. Part of that choice is choosing to ask for input and listen to the answers – even if they are answers we did not expect or want to hear.

0 comments Published Thursday, February 07, 2008 by James W Breckenridge.

Internment Camps?

Watching the news during the first weekend of February was disquieting, raising questions and concerns about the Campbell government’s ability to address homelessness, mental illness, addiction, poverty and poverty reduction not only in a suitable but a just way. I was also left with serious doubts about the government’s capability to deal with these issues in an effective and fiscally responsible manner.

Two years ago I wrote that if the Campbell government continued to suffer from a lack of ideas, leadership and some boldness they would be digging in the archives for the old plans to the World War II camps used to intern Canadians of Japanese ethnicity.

No leadership, no ideas, no innovation, no boldness and you find time ticking away creating political pressure to DO SOMETHING! Anyway of rounding up the homeless and getting them out of sight before the eyes of the world turns to BC for the Olympic Games in 2010 begins to look tempting.

Sounds a little farfetched?

Until you have Health Minister George Abbots talking about reopening Riverview to begin getting the homeless mentally ill of the streets and interned out of sight. Of course this is for “their own good”. Given the number of homeless estimated in the report for mental health it is clear that just Riverview could not house all 15,500 homeless. You would have to find other “accommodation” for the balance.

The government did talk about using old prisons or other such facilities in the interior as places to set up residential programs that would help people get a trade and ready to get back into society, “for their own good”. I heard the other day about just such a two year program running right now although of very limited space.

You would have to come up with some sort of plans for camps to house the residents of a program expanded to 15,500. Perhaps the archives …

Politicians, political pressure and political expediency have me remembering the caution that “the road to hell is paved with good attentions”.

The government’s plans to look at reopening Riverview to house the homeless “for their own good” is a plan to step onto a very steep, very slippery slope. It is a slope that as someone who has suffered homelessness and mental illness fills me with disquiet and foreboding.

0 comments Published Saturday, February 02, 2008 by James W Breckenridge.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Mr. Redekop certainly provided an interesting piece of evidence about the fact statistics can mislead without an understanding of the context of the statistics. His letter, with its blatant attempt to beguile the reader and obfuscate the underlying implications and reality of the income numbers, clearly demonstrates that without context statistics and numbers are meaningless.

Citing figures ”…not totally accurate but close enough”; comparing apples and oranges (the underlying economic realities of “some decades ago and of today); then choosing what incomes to include in the “statistics” in a manner guaranteed to generate the desired “proof” as to the high level of income in Abbotsford; Mr. Redekop’s argument would appear to have no other purpose than to “massage” the numbers into the form and level he wants them to be.

Why Mr. Redekop feels it necessary to be an apologist for those whose ideology requires the level of income in Abbotsford to be high and thus deny the true levels of poverty and economic hardship in the city I do not know. Perhaps denying the unacceptable, and rising, levels of poverty and economic hardship allows Ideologues to continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of life for our most vulnerable citizens. In not seeing, or at least refusing to acknowledge, the levels of suffering they can continue to live in denial of any need to redress this unfairness and pain.

I always recommend “How to Lie with Statistics”, Darrell Huff’s perennially best-selling introduction to statistics for the general reader to people.

One of the reasons I did not join Mr. Chapman, Judith Isaaks Sol et al and “pile on” Mr. Dimanno for his mathematical slip, was that without the detailed underlying data I could not definitely conclude any of his or their statements were wrong.

Mr. Dimanno may well have misstated what he meant to say, but his underlying point about the extreme folly and blindness of the economist’s statements contrasted with the realities of life for the poor was valid.

I would like to draw reader’s attention to the important second half off Mr. Chapman January 18^th letter citing the BC dieticians 2007 cost of eating report contrasted with the giving provincial government grants to those who own million dollar homes. I would like the reader to further consider this “’aid’ to the property wealthy (within government ideology) with the failure to adequately deliver needed support, services or aid the homeless (outside government ideology).

I leave you with one interesting statistic from the Cost of Eating in BC 2007. Paying for shelter plus food to meet the minimum Canada food guide levels (nothing else just food and shelter) requires that some pay 107% of their income.

Perhaps Mr. Campbell, his fellow ideologues and apologists would care to enlighten us as to how one spends 107% of your income. Assuming one is not a politician, ideologue, apologist or economist.

Homeless in Abbotsford, BC

My Linked Homeless Pages

Alternative Perspectives Views & News

Information & Reference

Lastest Posts

Archives