While his interactions are different from those we have with our local homeless population, the problem remains the same. The New Yorker article provides an interesting way of dealing with the hard-core people who are stuck in the cycle of homelessness. It also talks about rogue cops and polluting cars, which sounds crazy, but trust me, it all makes sense.
So, why can't I get past the idea of giving someone who is proven to be untrustworthy in the extreme what amounts to a reward in order to save money? My inherent "it's not fair" knee-jerk reaction is why. Still, having seen what a small group of people monitoring a small city's population as they recover from Katrina can do out of compassion and caring, I'm more than willin to believe that having case workers who consistently check on the hard-core homeless works. The key is to keep that ratio low, even if it looks bad on paper. Case work can't be done like piece work: you have to get to know the people you're tracking and be willing to stop and listen to them about everything, at the drop of a hat.
Here in my little corner of the world, we have a group of about regulars who come in the library in the winter on the day our community 'hosts' them overnight. They move from city to city all week as the shelter moves from church to church. I've worked days at the library now for about 4 years. While some of the people on the periphery change each year, the core group of about 8 is composed of the same faces as it was 4 years ago. They follow our rules, because they know they risk not having a warm place to hang out in January if we decide to ban The Homeless from the library. They police themselves, and the core group is perfectly willing to 'turn in' one of the peripheral group if he gets out of line (drinking, yelling, whatever). I actually don't mind having these folks around--they're like the family members no one wants to acknowledge. A couple of us, years ago, came to the conclusion together that, for some reason, these 8 or so people just prefer being homeless. I know that sounds nuts, but they clearly have the ability to function in society given clear structure; maybe regular society doesn't give them enough structure, it makes them responsible for themselves and they can't handle that.
I don't know. What I do know is that these guys (and a couple of women) are human beings with the same right to be treated with dignity and compassion as the rest of the lunatics populating our library. In fact, they give us much less trouble than some people! Give me Sherry, Bob, Mike, and Steve playing cribbage at a back table and getting occasionally raucous over some of our rude and slightly sociopathic patrons ANY day. Of course, if Mike heads to the parking lot 18 times in 4 hours, we know he's nipping out of his liquor store and he's likely to be tipping over in a bathroom stall by 2:30, but Sherry always appoints someone to drag him out of the library for the rest of the day if he really starts losing it. Yes, Steve does like to argue about the internet policy, but it's the same argument every time and he's NEVER belligerent; everyone knows their lines and he backs down after the usual 3 minutes of pleading. I've even had a couple of guys say to me (at different times) "Wow, that man/woman was really rude, wasn't s/he?" after watching me deal with someone trying to impress themselves by showing their lack of knowledge about personal interaction.
Here's today's blessing:
May no obstacle come across your way,[what's with all this radiating???]
and may you attain the completion of inward peace.
Use cooperation instead of competition as your business model.
Give and radiate.
No comments:
Post a Comment