Integral Crisis Response Team

Town Square
29

I think an Integral approach would parse some of the macro issues around homelessness. For instance, housing is of three basic types: low-income, affordable, and market value. Low-income and affordable housing are not the same. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the US agency that administers low-income housing projects and programs. Reportedly, for about 80 available HUD (aka Section 8) units, there are about 2000 qualified applicants, and the wait times for housing vouchers can be as long as 8-10 years. So clearly HUD is a program that needs “challenged,” which means to be better funded or otherwise supported or improved or revamped as the need outstrips what is available. Affordable housing is considered below-market value housing, and there is a lack here too. Where I live, the city is assisting developers (tax breaks and such) in building more affordable housing for teachers, firefighters, police, nurses, and others in what used to be considered the middle-class (now diminishing). What is happening all across the country is that corporations are buying up properties and turning vacant office buildings into apartments and such, but not into affordable or low-income housing but into higher-end housing that a particular segment of the market can bear. This inflates housing prices across the board, those for sale and those for rent, in any particular community. Homes being turned into vacation rentals also affects available housing. So these are some macro issues that make some people houseless, homeless, but there are others of course. Available low-income or affordable housing for seniors is also a problem. As Marianne Williamson states again and again, a pretty lone voice in the cacophony, half of seniors in the US live on less than $25,000 a year. Social Security is inadequate for these people, so that’s a federal program that needs to be better supported, and also looked at in terms of its solvency. I am of course addressing only one aspect of the causative factors for homelessness, but housing is a pretty big one, and it’s all pretty much related to an economic system that is leaving too many people behind.

Public safety, as @robert.bunge pointed out, does need to be considered in relation to unsheltered homeless people. The pendulum always swings, and I think integralists would take a both-and approach, attending to the public safety issues but also the needs of the homeless.
While crime levels vary in different places, and while there were increases in crime, including violent crimes, in 2020 and 2021, they were still 30-40% lower than in the 90s. In 2022, overall crime rates are down, including: murders (down by 6.1%), rape (down 5.4%), aggravated assault (down 1.1%). Yet people have the perception that crime is rising. I think much of this has to do with the spectacle of mass shootings, as well as a general sense that there is disorder in society. Again the visibility of street people plays into this, as does the hang-over from Jan. 6, the number of political protests, the coarseness of political and social media talk, and being fed a steady diet by some of the media and some of the political powers that we are not safe. I am not trying to trivialize the safety issues presented by some of the homeless population (my own house was broken into by a homeless person years ago), but crime is not near where it was 25-30 years ago. We are generally safer (from crime) than we might imagine, and an integralist approach would do what it can to clear up the misperceptions, i.e. support the facts.

I offered that stat in order to provide some perspective. I don’t mean to trivialize or minimize the homelessness problem, or discount the very difficult existence of many of the homeless. There are so many problems in society, and all competing in a way for attention (and money). For instance, there are 500,000 new cases of Alzheimers disease each year in the US, with 6 million Americans living with it. There are 1.9 million new cancer cases each year, 608,570 deaths from it annually. 43.8 million adults in the US experience mental illness in any given year, with 10 million American adults living with a serious mental illness. 13.6 million adults in the US age 26 or older have a substance use disorder; 22% of males and 1.75% of females age 12 and older are alcohol dependent.

I think an integralist approach is one that is realistic; for instance, accepting that there are some people who are so traumatized, they most likely will never be able to live indoors or in close-knit relationships (I have known a few), or be able to obey the rules and regulations of shelters, so tent encampments are not such a bad idea. But I also think an integral approach is one that is idealistic, challenging old-school thinking about what can and cannot be done, and most of all, having a vision of a better world. While I personally can accept, for instance, that wars and all sorts of degradation and agony and moral squalor are a part of the current global picture, I can also still hold the vision of a planet in beauty and love and peace. (And on a lighter note, look forward to Pluto entering Aquarius on Jan. 24 next year, ushering in a 20 year period of more humaneness and greater equality consciousness along with some really positive scientific and technological breakthroughs :slightly_smiling_face:)

30

Homelessness actually has very little to do with housing AVAILABILITY. If we look at rental vacancy rates in the USA, the % is far above that of the homeless population. Even During COVID, the rental vacancy rate fell to 4% while the homeless rate is less than 1%
image
This % doesn’t even count corporate investment housing that just lies vacant decade after decade.
The economic savings of simply providing rental subsidies is obvious. The alternative of Homeless people finding somewhere to hide or even camping out in the open and clearing them out periodically is documented to be far more expensive than just giving rental subsidies.
In addition to this we have the constant expense of Police being called on homeless people who are not actually committing a crime but the police have to respond anyway and waste their time at the cost of hundreds of thousands per week per department just making a pretense of actually doing something.
The primary problem is a lack of desire by landlords and taxpayers to link homeless with housing.
Concerning large projects and facilities, when free housing is provided in a facility, there are usually rules that make it preferable for some homeless to not use the facility, or not enough rules for others to feel at risk in the facility. This is often due to drug addiction and/ or mental illness, which often go together.

But above all of this, and the root cause of the problem is just the complete and utter lack of desire of the general public to actually solve the problems and constant criticism of any existing partial solutions that could possibly be woven together to form a solution.

The Integral part here is the problem of educating the general population and creating a change in the general population. The actual solutions to the problems are already mostly in place and just need political support.

Top Level: Increase in Real Estate Taxes for residential property that is neither primary residence nor rental property. This would increase the supply of houses on the market and lower housing prices across the board, making more housing affordable for the middle class.
Next: Streamlining Section 8 housing subsidies. Most cities have huge backlogs of cases. This would allow the working class and lower middle class to have a home as long as they don’t destroy it.
Next: Tiered Facilities according to strictness of rules. At the strictest level would be places that are aesthetically appealing and comfortable but have strict rules for cleanliness and behavior. This would provide safe housing for families who are unable to find even low paying jobs. This could be due to physical disability or simply not being able to handle a job, or being to old to be employable old and not having a pension.
At the bottom level are facilities with strong security but drug addicts can shoot up or toke up their preferred vice in safety. Another bottom level would be free voluntary inpatient facilities for the mentally ill where they can some and go as they want and be safe and receive free medication and mental health care, but are not forced to take medication.
Finally, there should be more affordable elder care.

Parallel to and supporting all these tiers would be jobs and work programs similar to Goodwill, addiction programs similar to Alcoholics Anonymous and so on, but implemented as an overall system and not haphazardly or only according to charitable donations.

All of these are already existing to some degree and do work in solving the homeless situation. The problem is that there is no public desire to support them further and actually solve the problem properly.

1 Like
33

Yes, mental illness is very broad and can’t be placed in just a few categories.

One important thing to consider is increased risk of self harm in some populations that can swing widely up and down from hour to hour. One minute they are fine and want help, the next they are hurting themselves. Safety for people at risk requires a somewhat less attractive and more restrictive facilities. Although voluntary inpatient might not be the best option for this group.
Another common problem with the elderly and mental patients is hoarding, or in the case of depression just simply not caring to clean anything. These situations necessitates slightly more restrictions and slightly less comfortable conditions.

To some degree i think most liberal states and cities in the USA have some kind of free Medical Insurance and the US government provides funding for a food debit card for those in need. What we are missing is the accommodation. The other problem is the variability of implementation from state to state.
What would make sense for a large portion of the unhoused or at risk of being unhoused population would be a system similar to our food vouchers. Food vouchers can only be spent on food, so rent vouchers would only be spent on accommodation that has gone through some kind of approval process, perhaps with Alphanumeric Codes to denote what to reasonably expect from the accommodation. The other side of the equation would require tenants to have left the prior residence in good standing, or they are no longer eligible for accommodation at that level.

2 Likes
34

Is the homeless crises really a nation wide problem?
Is it more prolific in places where free social services are offered?
If there were required compliance by authorities, like drug rehab, mental counseling, forced fencing or housing if that would be an acceptable integral intervention?
If a political conservative were to lead the clean up in San Francisco would that go mildly reported or become a viral persecution against government over-reach?

1 Like
35

Correlation is not causation.
I can give you the example of Hawaii - the cause of homelessness is NOT social services being offered.
Social services do attract those who are already homeless, but are not the cause of it.
Nobody says “Hey, maybe if I sleep on the street in the cold of winter I can get free food.”
What happens is people become homeless, then migrate to an area where there is some degree of humanity and compassion.
I would say that Conservative answers to homelessness are not even Christian, much less Integral.
The only thing the data you linked to shows is that Hawaii, for example is a far more charitable and follows the spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ far, far, far more than a rich but morally bankrupt state like Texas regardless of their claims to being “more Christian” and “more American” than a state full of immigrants, for example.
Time for some Supply Side Jesus I suppose.
image
image
image
image
Forced medical experimentation in camps surrounded by barbed wire fencing would not be Integral, in my opinion. The field of psychology is rarely able to cure mental health issues and mostly focuses on “managing” it, which in acute cases means just doping patients up until they are compliant.
I have seen the Conservative solution of “cleaning up” several cities just before large international events. The “Conservative Solution” to clean up a city is to mobilize the National Guard and round up anyone and everyone into temporary facilities on any imagined charge possible. Then release everyone after the event, dropping all charges. This isn’t a permanent solution because the obvious thing is that you can’t arrest someone and expect them to find a home. If they could not afford it before they wont afford it after being locked up. This isn’t an actual solution. It’s a talking point.

37

At the risk of sidetracking the discussion, this point made me think of a website I found recently that among many other useful things lists the world’s most pressing problems and the most impactful careers using what I think is fairly practical and thorough criteria.

I wonder if the Integral Crisis Response Team should pick from this list.

38

On the topic of homelessness though, the vast amount of information and different perspectives offered thus far is going to require quite a bit of reflection and processing on my part. I wonder how I would be able to make executive decisions or even suggestions to an executive as support staff if I were involved in an organization dealing with this issue e.g. an Integral Crisis Response Team. As usual, I feel very humbled (and sometimes a little annoyed) engaging with this community.

Perhaps my next question is what would the first action of an ICRT be if they planned on addressing homelessness in their community? Start volunteering at a shelter? Look for ways to generate funding or goods? Email their local state representative?

39

I think the answer to “executive decisions” is Artificial Intelligence … It’s here already and coming to the rescue! Only the AI can act without the social stereotyping and/or political attacks and judgment’s that fly between the egoic human tribes and belief systems.

The machine cannot be tricked with “propaganda” or twisted by “trust the science” statistical data of Scientism. It has no feelings of guilt or embarrassment, nor is it driven by pride and power. Just pure Integral Wisdom from the Collective … think Star Trek and the Borg …, “Resistance is futile!” … once you get beyond the fear you wake up assimilated.

Finally the ideal Social caring and nurturing network of the hive. It’s comforting that it knows everything and cannot be influenced. Is it a Carl Marx or a Jesus Christ AI program? Maybe a Biden Progressive Paradise AI or a Trump Truther Capitalist Utopia AI?

1 Like
44

Just came across this video yesterday; worth a listen for sure. Houston’s success, in brief, due to:
*a strong mayoral system that supported finding solutions to homelessness
*coordination of the 100+ non-profit agencies that serve the homeless (establishing a central data base for intake processes and execution of services–much emphasized as important)
*relentlessness about finding/building housing, and focusing on barriers to housing (government id papers being a primary one, which Houston provides; but also eviction histories, bad credit, felony histories, move-in costs)

The thing about Houston’s success is that it was funded with Covid Relief monies which are drying up, and there is skepticism that the city will support or finance the successful efforts on its own.

The NYT reporter/columnist who studies homelessness says the primary factor nationally is the shortage of low-income and affordable housing, and the cost of building housing, along with zoning regs in (mostly liberal cities) and NIMBYism. Also, that in the 1960s, SROs (single resident occupancies–such as boarding and rooming houses, cheap rooms in hotels) were pretty much zoned out of existence due to their reputation of being “seedy.” He thinks they need to come around again.

1 Like
45

It’s as good of a MacGuffin as any other topic, lol.
It’s often difficult to track the pros and cons of a theory without an example to latch them onto.
For many emergencies there are often already existing organized Crisis Response Teams that do address all levels up to at least Green. For example, part of the response to a mass traumatic event is not just police and medical staff, but also mental health counseling.
Then there are the “crises” that apparently nobody really cares about except to show some kind of token interest to self affirm oneself as a “good person”. These are things like animal cruelty, homelessness, addictions and so on. The most common response is that most people want to make an appearance of being concerned, but not actually have a desire to really fix things.

The interesting thing is that throughout this discussion, homelessness is seen by everyone in the discussion as a problem to be solved rather than humans who have basic needs that are pretty easy to alleviate. This dehumanizing of a problem allows us to come up with inhumane solutions or do nothing. It’s a problem, not a human after all.

46

Disagree, speaking for myself.

4 Likes
50

I think you’ve mentioned this answer to me before and I am warming up to it. I started a master’s program in September and they had us do some work with chat gpt so I will continue exploring this tool.

Hahaha maybe both/and?

1 Like
51

When it becomes inhumane is when the food vouchers are held as ransom for desired behavior, such as religious participation.

This is another reason why the “Houston Solution” mentioned by @LaWanna is not ideal and can actually be exploitative. Sure, some Charities provide food or shelter without a hidden agenda. Or at least they have in the past before the culture wars got into full swing.

Churches as organizations do have agendas for helping. This increasingly has less to do with the teachings of Jesus and more of a quid-pro-quo. You want food? Listen to a sermon. You want a shower or Shelter? You have to live in the section for the gender you were assigned at birth.

Psychological “treatment” is horror show as I’ve said before. You want food, shelter and a place to sleep and are a bit eccentric, first you have to (allegedly) commit a crime (like being dirty) so the system can forcibly detain you without trial to determine your guilt or innocence as long as they want even for decades, then dehumanize you and commit atrocities against you including forced medication and isolation until you comply.

Very very few current solutions offer food without an agenda. It’s not so much giving to those who are disadvantaged as it is an exchange.

52

A little research into the Houston Solution.
When I look at the pamphlet that a homeless person in Houston would receive from “Coalition for the Homeless”, which shows where to go for shelter, there are zero non-Christian solutions.

The Beacon - Evangelical
Salvation Army - Evangelical
Star of Hope - a “Christian Centered Community”
Covenant house - Catholic

There are more options for food, with only about 10% secular options.

Substance abuse programs are much better, with the majority being secular options.

53

My “Disagree, speaking for myself” comment Ray was in regards to the way you characterized “everyone in this discussion,” suggesting that by addressing homelessness as a social problem, we are “dehumanizing” homeless individuals. I have read over all of the posts here, and did not find one comment from anyone that I would describe as dehumanizing of the homeless; on the contrary, many remarks of compassion and care.

That said, from the perspective of the LL and LR quadrants, homelessness is a social problem, and analysis of it is within integralism’s province. And most analysis has to begin with collecting data and studies and facts as they are currently known. As it was not mentioned in the video, I do not know how many of the 100 non-profits in Houston are faith-based organizations; do you?

I do know that according to a Baylor University 2017 study, non-governmental faith-based organizations were providing 58% of emergency shelter beds and food programs in the 11 cities surveyed across the nation. Part of the reason for this is that since the presidency of George W. Bush, more money has been available to religious organizations to provide soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and substance abuse treatment. But there are exceptions in the nation as well; for instance, only 40% of homeless services in New York City are provided by faith-based orgs; the rest are government or privately funded or secular non-profits.

I do understand your point about “food being exchanged for a sermon.” I imagine there are some homeless individuals who would not object to this. (A 1992 survey of 655 men and women on the streets in LA found that 96% “believe in God.” A 1994 study found that 42% of homeless women credited God and religion for their ability to survive and be clean of substances. As these studies are rather old; I don’t know what the stats might be today.) And I imagine that there are plenty of homeless people who would object to the sermon requirement, where it exists.

The fact that serving the homeless is so dependent on faith-based organizations speaks to at least two of the points the journalist was making in the video: strong political leadership supportive of government helping the homeless is one key to doing just that, and another is there being adequate housing options that the homeless can afford. If you watched the video, you heard him discuss how Dallas, without this necessary kind of political leadership, saw their homeless population rise during the period that Houston’s decreased (and two years later, Dallas adopted Houston’s program). The other factor is the willingness for governments, businesses, secular non-profits and organizations, foundations, and taxpayers to put money towards helping homeless people, which thus far, there is a pretty poor record of.

1 Like
54

You are welcome Sidra. And yes, do share whatever you find out as follow-up; how generous of you.

56

I agree I should avoid terms like “everyone”.
If for no other reason than it gives “everyone” a reason to not address the message behind the words and instead take personal umbrage.

The way the United States goes about “solving” social issues is just broken at AQAL. It’s almost as bad as having no solution. While we can judge the society without any solutions as immoral or at a lower stage of development, offering bad solutions allows Americans to believe they / our society is superior when it is not, or that people offering solutions are morally higher - but if you look closer there is a taint of moral inurement attached to the offering.

I have described the inhumane nature of solutions being offered (in the United States). I didn’t mention this geographical specificity, so of course @Julia248 has a reason to disagree as the UK has a different situation.

The alternative in the United States: Receive food and shelter in exchange for a religious sales pitch. If your very existence is against church doctrine, such as LGBTQ or Muslim or Wiccan or unmarried partnership, and so on - you have to conform to religious doctrine in exchange for food and shelter. The goal of one of the organizations in offering “charity” is clearly stated: “To create a Christian Centered Community”.

Again, this is only the surface level. The deeper level is solving modern Society’s absurd and broken structure. Yes, one solution is building dormitory style housing for single people, but the deeper problem is modern society sees this as “less than”. Another option is cafeteria style food options. I ate at such a place daily in Europe. I got a good, healthy cheap European meal (means soup and bread included). Let’s say the equivalent would be like $5 today. Similar options for food and lodging were available in US cities 75 years ago, but our basic economic system and social morals destroyed those options. When I was young there were public rest rooms. Now cities are designed with no restrooms available except in business establishments for paying customers only. Water is unavailable in public areas except if purchased in a bottle from a store.
The issue is less that homeless people need homes and more that homeless people need social and economic acceptance. Let homeless people sleep in a park without harassment, give them a place to use the toilet and take a shower. These things don’t really cost money. How much does a spigot and hose cost? Actually zero. The current approach costs more because it’s more expensive to put a lock on the water spigot. It’s more expensive to create cities hostile by design and intent to the homeless
Here is a video of more of what I am describing.

Modern society goes out of its way to make life more uncomfortable for the homeless. Just reversing that trend would be treating them as human beings rather than a problem to solve.
It’s a bit schizophrenic for governments to propose solutions to problems of homelessness on the one hand and then on the other hand create policies that display society’s simmering hostility towards the homeless.
Addressing this irrational and seething hatred of society for the homeless is more important than any monetary solution.

59

Thrice disagree for myself and really for the rest of the thread from what I can tell. Pretty sure people are being fairly reasonable and empathetic about the topic. Sounds more like a talking point than an assessment of this discussion.

1 Like
60

Yes as far as I recall.

I am not sure. I definitely see exemplary thinking and discussion from some of its members that I don’t get anywhere else and that I’ve been looking for a while in people I would like to collaborate with. Then there’s some played out and problematic communication here that the internet (and often the real world) is similarly bogged down with.

It’s a possibility.

1 Like
62

Kind of a straw man there.

I’m not talking about any kind of romance and it’s not a binary issue. I’m aware that there are people “selling” the romance of such a lifestyle, just as there are people selling the romance of owning more house than people really need or can afford. Both extremes can lead to problems if one buys into the sales pitch of the romance of the solution.

I’d be interested in a response to the actual problem I am describing, regardless of if @LaWanna @MattMazz feels it applies personally to them.

Is it possible that what homeless people need or want may not actually in every case be actual housing?
Is it possible that most “solutions” are not actually looking at the true needs or desires of all but instead a minority of homeless people?
Is it true that when the problem is discussed people tend to discuss homeless people as tropes without looking at the great diversity of problems - or indeed lack of problem except in the eye of the viewer.
There are already lots of solutions to homelessness. Shall I repeat them and restate that they aren’t all that nice and that indeed some are inhumane and yet continue to be offered as “solutions”. Many of these solutions are more for the sake of an uncaring or sadistic public, or who just don’t want to see it or a “rescuing” public who want to see themselves as saints regardless of what the homeless actually want?
At the most messed up level are “solutions” that make the lives of homeless worse so they move along to somewhere else: locking up water sources and toilet facilities or eliminating these facilities altogether except in businesses for paying customers only. Denial of water is inhumane because it is a basic human survival level need and all kinds of physical and psychological problems result from dehydration. Warmth in winter is also a basic human need and redesigning public spaces to deny access to heat sources is also inhumane. We have hostile city “improvements” intended to make sitting anywhere in the public space uncomfortable or even painful. These solutions actually cost more money than just leaving the status quo and for this money the lives of homeless are made worse off.
Along side this we have the police “solution”, which again is to harass the homeless so they move along and out of warm or comfortable spaces.
Then we have the solution of shelters, which are the majority of the time operated according to stricter interpretations of the Bible as the actual literal Word of God. At these shelters there is the overt goal of recruiting more members into their branch of Christianity, without regard to if this is actually what the homeless want. Another issue is that many homeless don’t want to stay in these shelters because the shelters are not “tiered” and just group all “homeless” together as a monolithic group. As a result these facilities need to have tight security, which is often more unpleasant than sleeping outside - were it not for the sadistic “solutions” mentioned above.
Then there is the solution for those with emotional or mental disabilities, including Dementia and depression. If you happen to be unhoused and also have mental illness, odds are good that you will be locked up at some point and forced to take drugs intended to make you compliant with the rules of the facility. Nine times out of 10 this is a cheaper version of a drug with the effects of just making you brain dead and unable to focus on anything. The intention of these facilities is not to cure or help patients, but to hold them in zombie status basically forever.

Opposite to these solutions, we have real solutions that “nobody” (used rhetorically - don’t get upset) is considering.
1 - Just provide a warm space with toilet and clean water and a shower. If these already exist in a public space, don’t have police drive them out. Make camping legal in parks until 6 am. It’s messed up to have homeless people face the decision of either getting a trespassing violation for sleeping on private property or a camping citation for sleeping in a public park.
2 - Don’t freak out about people lying on the sidewalk. Last night I had to step over an old man lying on the sidewalk next to his walker. I Said “You alright?” and when he nodded I gave him the shaka sign and a smile and moved on. I just wanted to make sure he wasn’t having a medical emergency.
3 - More state operated and “tiered” shelters. Overturn zoning laws that made Dormitories and cafeterias illegal. Make tax breaks for operating Dormitories and Cafeterias. Allow drug addicts to have a safe space to take drugs. Nothing fancy - just a clean floor in a safe space to lie down for an hour or so while they have their trip. Allow the flop house to return - where drunks can pass out in a safe space for a minimal price. Have separate and cleaner facilities for family oriented homeless communities and a separate more secure facilities for those with a history of violence. This will also reduce the need for mental health facilities because the majority of patients locked up involuntarily really just needed a safe place to live and were criminalized for not conforming to societal norms. They suffer from depression, PTSD, and other conditions and really mostly need a society that doesn’t criminalize nonviolent behavior and use the excuse that it’s better for them.

These first three are not so much what needs to be done, but more bad “solutions” that need to be undone or reversed. Homelessness first need to be decriminalized and destigmatized. All throughout human history the poor have had places to go to sleep and eat. Only in modern times have we made laws to actively make the plight of poor people worse. So when people start offering “solutions”, I want to clarify if the solution is for the homeless people or for a society with demonstrable sadistic behavior towards the homeless.

The next three are not so much solving the “homeless problem”, but reducing the probability of the por or middle class becoming homeless.

4 - Section 8 / HUD Administrative problems. I have no evidence of wrongful intent, but it is suspicious that some cities process this paperwork quickly while some have a backlog of many years.
5 - Impose an increased property tax on housing in residential zoning that is not occupied. This will increase the supply of housing available at lower prices and reduce artificial inflation of housing prices resulting from corporate investment in vacant housing, which will allow more working people to buy more affordable homes.
6 - Outlaw the HELOC for refinancing unsecured consumer debt as well as using refinance funds to pay consumer debt. HELOC and Refinancing should only be used to finance equity, not consumption. Nothing brings foreclosure crashing down like zero equity in a house because it has been used to finance consumer spending on a lifestyle the homeowner could not afford.