The closure of Whanganui District Council’s freedom camping site on Anzac Parade in December and the Taupō Quay homeless hub a year earlier has led to debate about who is responsible and what the best solutions are.
Observations have been made that many who are homeless don’t appear to help themselves, refusing to engage and behaving in antisocial ways.
When answering questions specific to these sites, it is important to define that we are primarily referring to people who are chronically homeless.
Chronic homelessness refers to those who have been homeless for more than a year or have had frequent experiences of homelessness within the past couple of years.
There are strong correlations with mental illness, substance abuse, disabilities and medical conditions.
Lack of adequate support and healthcare often make these conditions worse. This group comprises only a very small percentage of the homeless population.
However, not all people who are homeless are connected to these sites.
Transitional homelessness, the most common type, refers to those who are homeless for a short time because of a crisis or unforeseen event.
The provision of emergency or transitional housing along with work being done to increase housing stock, alleviate shortages and supports those who are transitionally homeless from falling further into homelessness.
As a society, we recognise that transitional homelessness is not always a choice. A lot of government resources are put into assisting people who are transitionally homeless.
Yet, as a society, we maintain a mainstream belief that chronic homelessness and associated antisocial behaviour is a choice.
We are not getting this right. We fail to empathise that some people experience a cumulation of disadvantages, discrimination and inadequate support.
Mental health issues, addiction and antisocial behaviour are strongly correlated with self-worth.
Distrust develops when we perceive that mainstream beliefs are harming us.
Government policy reflects this apparent choice around the concept of engagement.
If an individual is unable or deemed unwilling to engage with the current service provision, then there are no other support options available to them aside from community goodwill.
Community organisations working with people who are chronically homeless report that they do engage once trust is formed, and support is provided in a way meaningful to them.
Community organisations also observe that some in our community prey on those who are homeless. This is also my experience.
These different perspectives affect collaboration. While there are two strong opposing belief systems operating in the homeless space, the control of resources rests largely in the hands of only one.
Like most social issues, homelessness arises from systematic inequalities.
Nothing is to be gained by appointing blame. Everything is to be gained from increasing our understanding of the greater issues.
The single most cost-effective way to eliminate social issues is for each of us to treat others the way we want to be treated ourselves – with understanding, empathy, support and respect.
As a community we have the power to work together to build an inclusive connected community where we all feel safe and valued and no one gets left behind.
I want to finish by addressing some feedback I received from my last column, where I described situations I might be faced with at work.
The concern raised was about sharing private and confidential client information, and portraying Community House as not a safe place.
It was never my intention to sensationalise client experiences, or to portray people who experience mental health issues or Community House in a bad light.
The situation I described was hypothetical. I feel protective of our clients and consider any interaction or trust a privilege, and not something I would ever be prepared to compromise.
This goes beyond privacy to empathy and compassion.
Even if I didn’t mention names, the client would know, and so would I. That doesn’t sit right with me.
Community House is a safe space. We work very hard to make it that way.
You’d be surprised how few issues we have, mostly due to the inclusiveness of the environment we work in and the respect we show each other and our clients.
We do, however, deal with very serious issues like I described. I never want to brush reality under the carpet just because it’s hard to talk about or makes us uncomfortable.
What I specifically want to highlight though, is the conversation that took place.
Because we work in an environment where we understand we are all doing the best we can and value and respect each other’s different perspectives, my colleague felt safe to raise her concerns with me.
It resulted in a positive conversation where I took her perspective on board, and we discussed how I might be able to do it differently moving forward.
Conversations such as this foster trust and perfectly illustrate how different perspectives need not divide, they can in fact unite and make us stronger.
Every solution starts with respectful conversation.
If you have a question or topic you would like Shelley to discuss in future columns, you can email manager@communityhouse.org.nz.
