Simple Panhandling solution? - point of clarification
I just read Mr Schnurr’s latest blog. I don’t want to Argue with him or post on his site but wish to simply take his post to clarify information that is out there.
1. There is no one simple proposal being made. The following proposals are under discussion to deal with several different issues that panhandling gives rise to
A. Educate the public that Giving to social services agencies are a significantly more effective way to helP those who panhandle than giving to them directly
B. Establishing a means whereby those who choose to follow the advice above can do so easily while being reminded to give to these agencies more and more often
C. Offer some minimal protection to businesses that can be detrimentally affected by panhandling such as new bylaws that prohibit panhandling to a captive audience (patio railing, bus stop)
D. Offer some minimal protection to the public from Intimidation being panhandled in inappropriate places such as next to an ATM or at a entrypoint to the city where a person Comin to Windsor for the first time who is unfamiliar to their surroundings shouldnt be approached by strangers
E. Education of business owners and the public as to the safe streets act, learn about what social service agencies exist and the Role of each. Educate the police as to each party’s concerns. (ie… Police did not know panhandling next to ATM is already prohibited by safe streets act
F. Increased outreach programs to help those who panhandle sponsored by downtown businesses. (coffee or meal gift cards that can be offered by social workers in exchange for a conversation between them and a panhandle)
G. A brainstorming session and connections created between various stakeholders where those involved can think of more ways to help
If one party acts unilaterally they will likely fail but if all of the above are implemented in conjunction with each other, the sum of all those actions can be significant
Post Feedback
Difficult post, had to make it on an iPhone as I’m in niagara falls
I welcome comments from all but will be very cautious with comments as This is intended as a respectful response to Mr Schnurr’s post that I felt was needed. I will not allow any insults. I also feel that the less fortunate being discussed here deserve a thoughtful debate.
Good post Mark. I applaud you for having the courage to speak out on issues where many others are afraid. Your efforts in this case reflect the many years of work you have put into revitalizing the downtown core while at the same time recognizing that there are no simple solutions to any one problem. Your outreach to various agencies involved reflects your concern for others and a desire to find lasting solutions. Many like to throw stones but do little else.
I respectfullly ask, Paul, in light of all media reports highlighting but one solution, where are stones are being thrown? I am presuming of course your are referencing my blog linked above.
In my years working in the non-profit sector working with methadone clients, homeless gay and lesbian youth, and needle exchange, these other proposals mentioned above offer a much more comprehensive response to a multi-faceted issue and is heartening to see a multi-pronged approach over what was presented in the media - as I referenced in the blog.
Actually, I was referring to another blog written by Revy Kevvy, or something like that. The blog and subsequent comments attacked Mark both personally and his business.
i sat on a DWBIA panhandling committee about 5 years ago and it was so frustrating because no one including the police could find a solution. Judges throw out the cases when they get to court, asking for money is not illegal and the public doesn’t want to see the problem on the street.
Downtown has the same chronic persons- maybe 6- so why not look after them. I lived in Toronto where there were 100’s and it was 20 years ago.
Until a definitive solution is found, its a fact of our new society.
Other issues are pressing too but nothing ever gets resolved. We seem to go from problem to problem - it quells for a while and then, bam- it’s back with a more ferocity.The last poll I took with friends shows no one wants to come downtown unless there’s a festival, Sad but true.
It was the same in my home town Sheryl, a small group of core people. But it is similar in some ways to my experiences working a small number of the individuals as noted earlier.
No matter how much assistance, or how many other agencies we would refer clients to, as the expression goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. For some, we were successful, in other cases their outstanding issue was resolved only to find themselves in the exact situation a few months later.
As with anything, nothing will ever be 100% effective for the simple fact we are human and unpredictable.
And perhaps those 6 downtown have already been contacted by various agencies to no avail. But the idea the author stated such as outreach programs is something we need more of. And outreach our agency did try; but we were under-resourced.
We had our donation boxes throughout the city, and I’ll be honest, the donations we received through those were minimal. It was added funds, but not of any significant amount to do anything with (ie fund another outreach worker etc.)
Thanks sheryl, because the city refused to put the Dwbia on the agenda (I didn’t think that was even allowed but I have a letter from skorobahatz, my appeal and a 2nd letter if denial) the DWBIA board voted to do nothing after the panhandling taskforce. After may 25th, I hope we can get better results. I can’t Blane the rest if the board although I did vote tO fund pursuing this issue
There’s a couple of issues I have problems with in this post. The first one that jumps out at me is the “captive audience” statement. How does this apply to busking? We have a buskers festival do we not? Is that not a form of panhandling? I’m certain the members of the DWBIA benefit financially from that (or have in the past). Could someone provide statistics on how many incidents of people being accosted? The fact is that, like it or not, asking for money is not illegal. What about people that come to my door for donations? Or the ones that call the house? These are the reasons that you will never see the criminal code amended to make asking for money a crime. I don’t believe the Canadian Cancer Society has any more right to ask for donation than a guy that sleeps in an alley. We can argue the semantics of who is worthy of a contribution, but that won’t change the fundamental issue of whether or not asking for money is legal. It can’t be legal for some and not others. If the city were to invoke some draconian by-laws to chase away panhandlers, eventually it would find it’s way to the courts and be overturned. Trying to reinvent the wheel here is futile. This issue has been going on for a long long time in cities across the country. No city has made panhandling a thing of the past. The best you can hope for is to mitigate it. So the question then becomes how to best achieve the goals of the DWBIA, and address the genuine needs of the homelessness, poverty, and mental illness. The good news is that these goals are not mutually exclusive, as a matter of fact they are complimentary. If the DWBIA wants to be part of the solution, then perhaps they should get involved with the community groups on the ground. Laws and enforcement won’t work. Getting a handle on the root problems and their causes is the only way. Attack this problem at its core and not only will you see less panhandling, but you may also feel pretty good about yourself as well.
An aside…
“How does this apply to busking? We have a buskers festival do we not?”
We HAD a Buskers Fest… now it’s known internationally, to be avoided at all cost!
http://www.performers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16881
Buskers not included at all. Buskers provide a service and play music or entertain for tips. Apples and orangutans. I often tip buskers myself and am thankful for the Atmosphere they provide
No one, no one has proposed preventing panhandling. The same wonderful charter of rights an freedoms that protects panhandling protects my freedom if speech and I would not see it curtailed
The restrictions being discussed are minor and reasonable
Bus stops, over a cafe railing these places are captive audience in that a person in a middle of a meal or waiting for a bus does not have the choice to walk away
I defer again to the line. Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose
Jody, I agree with the principle behind what you are stating. I’m consistently cornered by those panhandling religion some of whom refuse to take no for answer. My partner and I are CONSTANTLY asked whether or not we want passes to Cheetahs or Leopards or wherever.
But I also agree that property investors as well as their patrons should not be harassed. I have experienced that on Chatham Street street patios. There must be a balanced yet compassionate response.
Actually, I guess I practise some of this proposal myself. People are always asking me for change for the bus; so I purchase several extra tickets for that purpose. Only once has someone walked away. The others have actually climbed on the bus. And during the 2006 election, a young woman approached me desperate, so I took her to Tim Hortons and explained where the shelters were and where she could get some food. But that was at 9 o’clock at night.
My overall concern, is given the resources required, the only part of these proposals that may see the light of day is the Don’t Give Change campaign. How effective that will be remains to be seen, but without the outreach component it may, as I wrote, cause additional more troublesome problems.
@Paul - thanks for the clarification. Always better to ask. Who is this Reverand Kewy person?
I will take the risk of posting here, even though Mr. Boscariol’s Panhandling update and Unit 7 blog is obviously intended as a forum to attack my agency as opposed to a discussion forum.
This post is for Chris Schnurr and any others interested.
My agency has provided the only Street Help Homeless Outreach program in Windsor for more than 11 years now. We provide this service free to the community.
No taxpayer dollars are used to support our program!
Our patrollers go out into the downtown area to meet with the homeless and provide emergency needs including coffee cards.
Using taxpayer dollars to fund the hiring of social workers to hand out coffee cards to panhandlers will cause:
1. A duplication of a service already provided
2. A cost of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to pay the salaries of these social workers and management staff (social workers are not going to work for less than $60,000 to go out in snow storms, rain storms, excessive cold days or excessive heat days!)
3. Scores of low income people will flood the downtown area posing as panhandlers to get a free coffee card (when the Homeless Coalition gave out stuffed backpacks last Christmas they announced the give away in the Mission. More than 90% of the Mission clients are not homeless but most showed up for their free “Backpack for the Homeless”!)
4. Coffee cards will be sold at a discount to raise cash to buy cigarettes, etc.
5. When the cards run out (there will not be an unlimited supply) there will be instances where the Windsor Police will be called to defuse the situation (painting a lovelier picture of downtown - flashing lights, police cars and cops and worse other areas of the city denied police service for real crimes - a business in the east end is broken into and the cops are so busy with the panhandlers the criminal is long gone before the cops can leave their duty of policing panhandlers for the Downtown BIA)
In respect to changing the bylaws:
1. The government has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in research on the issue and massive lawyers fees and they used the knowledge gleaned to establish the aggressive panhandling laws (most certainly to say people cannot ask for money would put every charity out of business!)
2. Every person charged under municipal bylaws can appeal and taxpayers will foot the bill, and it will be mightily expensive to the taxpayers
3. Downtown Windsor will suffer with each case of a panhandler being prosecuted. It will continue to spotlight the issue and it will continue to convince people Downtown Windsor is a dangerous and disreputable place to be.
It would be nice to see all the energy spent on this issue diverted into a plan to:
1. Promote the attractions of Downtown Windsor, and
2. Provide more attractions
Just as before the via will likely NOT support the change proposal If done in isolation
@Christine - I agree we shouldn’t be duplicating service, but cordinating them. The only point I was making, was that if people ask me for change to take a bus, I give them a bus ticket and, pleasantly surprised, watched them use it to take the bus - dispelling a preconceived notion I had held.
Not sure Christine if your agency does this, but there are overpasses under which a few people sleep. You can usually find them there at night, though not consistently. And unfortunately, I’ve also seen discarded needles there, and did contact the ACW needle exchange program. If you would like to know the locations (if you don’t already know), please let me know and I’ll contact you at Unit 7.
Hi Chris,
I am happy to know you have had this experience! When I was a homeless child for three years it would hurt when I would hear “Get a Job”.
The money I asked for was used to feed two homeless boys and myself. People were less sympathetic to them and they could not earn the amount I could.
We were fed and had no reason to steal.
Coordinating services for the homeless is difficult in Windsor as there is a history of duplication of services and, in the case of my agency, a major attack and smear campaign to justify an attempted takeover.
A big agency with the ability to garner large taxpayer funding and ability to issue receipts wanted to enrich their agency. (In person I would happily disclose the proof of this to you!)
Quite frankly, if I and my programs were driven out, the programs could be reinvented with paid salaries for social workers!
The service providers of this other program believe (with their minor college diplomas) they are the true “professionals”, and, they view my staff and I as “amateurs”.
I can example it with this analogy: Alcohol and Drug Addiction programs should not coordinate with AA or NA because the later are “amateurs”.
Ridiculous right? Sadly, this is the mentality of this other agency.
Thus, in a nutshell I provide the simplest explanation of why a large program that work with the “homeless” does not want to work with us but chooses to work against us.
In respect to the Addictions Programs: they do indeed include AA and NA and regularly send their clients to these programs for ongoing support, as it should be!
Joyce Zuk has told me she has taken over as Chair of the Homeless Coalition and it is her hope we will rejoin. (When we can be assured the committee will not be another forum to attack our agency we will be happy to rejoin. I didn’t get into the field of service to the homeless to be the scapegoat for every issue!)
Thanks, I will appreciate the information to pass on to my patrollers. They may already be aware but it doesn’t hurt. Our number is 519-977-9200.
Let me again re-iterate that unless you are prepared to take a deeper look a the root causes; with real intent to address them, you will pissing in the wind. I mean….how do you enforce a panhandling by-law? Outreach is essential, but it has to involve a connection to community services, and it has to involve collecting some information. Sure we can give out blankets and free coffee. That’s great, but a harm reduction type approach isn’t going to get people of the streets. It’s a foot in the door, but needs to have some real follow-up. People aren’t in the streets begging for money because they enjoy it. These folks are experiencing some very real problems. Addiction, and mental health problems primarily.
So I guess the question for Mark and others becomes, do you genuinely want to help the homeless…..or do you just want them to leave you alone?
P.S I am still wondering if P2P has been involved with this issue at all.
you are said that you can help the homeless with what and where i go unit 7 they help them out by give them food and help out with to get a place to talk to them and they give them a safeplace to go and have goodtime
Jody, that is the purpose of ‘outreach.’
And even then, that fails as often as it succeeds. One can’t force someone with an addiction to seek treatment anymore than forcing you to take heroin. And nor can we force treatment without permission on any individual without consent.
This is the challenge with addressing panhandling - but it does require intervention - no one is denying that from what I’ve read today.
@Christine -
I’m not surprised. I experienced a similar type of reaction when I spoke at Save Our Community Services when I dared to suggest the non-profit sector needs to work closer together, share resources where services may be duplicated. The solution at that time seemed to be to ask the Province of Ontario for more funding.
The silo mentality has to end which will better meet the needs of our community.
I understand what outreach is Chris. I guess what I’m questioning is its efficacy in its current state. If we say that what were are doing is only successful half the time (at best), then we clearly need to rethink the strategy or throw up our arms and f-it.
I agree wholeheartedly that the “silo” mentality is a huge impediment. I also think that with the reduction in available funds for non-profits there is no better time to build the connections between agencies. Necessity is the mother of invention.
I also don’t believe that trying to enforce stricter by-laws is going to be the solution either. I think it will be costly and ineffective. I recall sitting on a patio at the Gasworks on Yonge st one day and homeless guy came by and asked for some change. As I was reaching into my pocket to give him some, the bouncer came running out the bar and punched the guy in the mouth. I freaked out on the bouncer. He told me he’s punched that same guy about twenty times. So if a bloody fat lip isn’t going to deter a guy, I don’t see how a ticket will.
Most of these ideas have already been in other Canadian cities.
The people in those cities argue that these suggestions all help.
People like Christine Wilson need not only to convince me but they need to dispute the evidence from other canadian cities that these ideas have produced positive results
And you’re right a ticket won’t. I can say with 99% certainty, the ticket will not be paid and serves only to criminalize poverty at the extreme.
But I will also say, communities everywhere have been attempting to address the issue. But I’ve been trying to find studies as to whether or not they have met with success, but haven’t come across any ‘objective’ analysis. By that I mean, an analysis provided by someone other than the organization implementing the program.
If success means they no longer panhandle in a specific area, but in turn, show up in another, I would not consider that program successful.
Chris,
Thanks, I agree the silo mentality has to end.
I feel bad you have experienced the same attitude from other service providers.
Another ill our community suffers from is “living off the backs of the homeless”.
The issues of homelessness and panhandlers should not result merely in job creation, job stability or promotions with pay raises.
We can hope that with Joyce Zuk now at the helm of the homeless coalition we may see a change that offers connection and cooperation between agencies.
And I”ll clarify further - it may be successful within the objective of the program; but I determine success with data demonstrating the program has removed X number of people from the streets into stable housing, employment and/or treatment.
Chris,
This is a link to the story of a local agency doing a fake street patrol in downtown Windsor, a duplication of my agency’s service!
This other local agency did not inform Cathy Crowe of Windsor’s largest soup kitchen - the Mission!
http://www.nrchmi.samhsa.gov/(S(qxi1gjfvfot2am55bdklag45))/Resource/Advocate-tours-Windsor-hopes-to-help-homeless-coalition-50075.aspx
This article helps to example Windsor’s lack of coordination.
The most damning thing of this article is the blatant attempt to convince the province a service already provided free to our community should be duplicated and this other agency should receive funding!
@ Chris & Christine
Again I want to reiterate that in essence I am only regurgitating what has been told to me for discussion purposes. Indepedent from that, I am sidinng on certain aspects.
Question - It appears to me that the only results that will be viewed are amount of people removed from the streets.
1. Windsor does not have a homeless problem it has an at risk of homelessness problem. That includes those living in conditions that are substandard and counch surfers
Question: Is there a better measurement. Maybe thats the first topoic of discussion. What are several different variables whose measurement we can look at
2. I find it insulting to the public and businesses that organizations are basically saying they will REFUSE to look at improvments to any other concerns.
I.E. What if the help we try to give panhandlers yeilds only very minimul results. What if the other policies significantly increase sales, visitors, perception, testimonials ets…
It sounds like all of those results won’t even considered. How can you expect others to have empathy when you are devoid of it yourself
I am also told that Windsor has a higher rate of substance abuse than other Ontario cities, specifically
I hesitantly put forward my thoughts.
1. Panhandling encompasses a variety of individuals and a variety of factors influencing the behaviour. What factors contribute to living in “substandard” conditions? What are substandard conditions? How is that related to panhandling? Couch surfers are homeless. My view, although it may differ from official views, is that homelessness is the absence of stable housing or rather “houselessness”
2. What issue are we trying to resolve? Homelessness? Or panhandling? Homelessness requires assistance at the municipal and provincial levels. To control panhandling, a word intentionally chosen, means addressing all the factors that contribute to it. I do not believe any policy within legal contexts will eliminate it, we can only seek to compassionately mitigate it.
3. When addressing the issue of panhandling it would be irresponsible (and not you Mr. Boscariol), to ignore the ramifications of the policy. Sure, sales may increase, visitors may increase, etc., BUT you still have panhandlers now tapping into a larger market.
4. I take exception to being labelled “devoid” of “empathy” for the concerns of property owners in the core. I am not disputing aggressive panhandling and trespassing upon private property solicitating for change, needs to be addressed. But in addressing that issue, one must also consider the impacts upon the panhandlers themselves. Failing to address those impacts, ultimately will resort in failure of the policy and potentially more aggressive behaviour.
5. You need to breakdown the motivations for panhandling. What are the demographics? What are the physicals factors that may contribute to it (addiction, poverty, disability, etc., what is the individual’s mental state - is the individual afraid of social service providers? Are they aware of them? Did they access services? Did treatment or service fail for the individual? Are they in receipt of social assistance or other income stability program? Why isn’t it meeting their needs? etc.
6. I’m not disputing the proposals put forward - outreach must be increased, outreach must be matched with referral to service, I’m all for offering free transit tickets, and even meal vouchers, however, if the concern is of enabling addictive behaviours, this too also frees up limited income.
7. What are the numbers of panhandlers we are dealing with? I know of 4 regulars I see downtown.
I maintain, unless you address the sources of the issue, and match it with outreach, referral and service provision, a policy will not have a positive benefit in the long run. As I’ve said, you may remove it from a certain area, but it will pop up in other areas, or lead those panhandling to take on increasingly aggressive or even criminal behaviour.
I forgot to add one other point. When a client walks through the door, a client is evaluated on a number of points. For example, heroin use. If the client refuses treatment, the only option left is harm reduction. I point to needle exchange programs or safe injection sites as an example. Or giving out free condoms or birth control as another.
Sometimes, no matter what, a heroin user will continue using. Therefore, as a service provider, I must find a way to reduce the harm on the individual directly, or indirectly, upon the general public.
Within the context of panhandling, the approach should be A. Service referral and provision or B. in the failure of that option, reducing harm specific policies could have on that individual and the community at large.
Still stuck on iPhone so please forgive abbreviated response
Chris, I’m treading as light as I know how as I do not want discussion to devolve
Keep in mind iv had a lot of comments on a lot of forums so nothing I write is referencing you
1. My empathy comment referenced some of the thongs Christine said bit not just her. It is not a name calling thing, but it is how many of ys business owners feel when reading hers and others comments, hence lack of empathy is the proper term
2.I’m discussing panhandling. Many others are improperly associating that with homelessness which is wrong. I was told by those who know that vast majority of Windsors panhandlers are NOT homeless. Also that there is NO situation that anyone must sleep in a street unless they are intoxicated or break other rules. However Windsor has no sanctuary or what many call a “wet shelter”. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing
3. I agree that more information must be collected but I am still seeing if information already gathered is shared with public.
I wouldn’t agree that certain actions must wait. Some can be done hand in hand. Also, in some specific areas, it would be fair to draw some preliminary conclusions from data collected in other Canadian cities even if only to use as premises to test against (I think that’s the right phrase)
4. There are a dozen panhandlers on ouellette that I have specifically witnessed but I’m told by others who pay more attention than me that the figure is double that
In closing. Chris, we have set our differences aside in the past to create positive change in windsor. I would hope that this could be one of those issues
Look, no ones going to stop panhandling, and if this only results in one or two panhandler more benefitting from services an educating business owners while providing them some minimal protections than that’s one or two lives saved
I think all of that would be worth one or two panhandlers off the street, into a program and maybe even a job
Think about it. Instead if arguing with business’s they should be negotiating
“If I were social services i be saying: create 4 part time permanent jobs that would allow panhandlers of social services choice who have restrictions/limitations and you have our support
Maybe im being naive but I’m an incurable optimist
3.
Chris,
Great points you have made.
Panhandlers and homeless people are often mistakenly identified as the same. Factually, the majority of panhandlers in Windsor are not homeless.
During the almost 12 years my agency has patrolled downtown Windsor we have interacted with the panhandlers. The majority report they do not receive sufficient income to put food on their tables.
The large foodbanks serve clients once every three months, and, they provision enough food for 3 days. Foodbanks have seen a large increase in the numbers of people with children accessing their services.
Most of the panhandlers have gone to foodbanks where they see hungry children and they decide to resort to begging for change. The panhandlers do not want to take the food away from the children. This is called showing compassion.
I believe a few individuals behind this campaign have an ulterior motive. Why, what would the motive be?
Read this article: (add your own www and dot)
nrchmi.samhsa.gov/(S(4y4xp1aw0rxiyj45gu50zd55))/Resource/Advocate-tours-Windsor-hopes-to-help-homeless-coalition-50075.aspx
A fake patrol, with fake patrollers!
My agency has provided this service for almost 12 years.
The title of this article tells all “Advocate tours Windsor, hopes to help homeless coalition”.
This plan fell through when Cathy Crowe learned there was an agency already providing this service!
It is prudent to mention Cathy Crowe was also not informed of Windsor’s largest soup kitchen the Mission.
It is apparent to me that this big hullabaloo is simply another attempt to force government to fund another agency to duplicate my agency’s service.
The Downtown BIA, downtown business owners and persons who would love to see a thriving downtown core should leave the panhandlers alone and let us continue to provide our services.
We ensure the panhandlers and the homeless are provided the information they need to access all available services our community has to offer.
For those who would like to see our outreach patrols increased, we would be more than happy to provide an increase in service if our funding were restored.
One parcel of funding we received was used to hire the homeless and pay them to patrol the areas they are familiar with, interact with the homeless and share specifics e.g. what ID they need to access to service, how long they can access the service etc.
The homeless will readily trust one of their own as opposed to a social worker and this should not be dismissed.
For those who would like to provide us more coffee cards, McDonald’s cards, etc. we would greatly appreciate it.
Some homeless people “will work” for food our homeless patrollers proved that.
Chris,
Great points you have made.
Panhandlers and homeless people are often mistakenly identified as the same. Factually, the majority of panhandlers in Windsor are not homeless.
During the almost 12 years my agency has patrolled downtown Windsor we have interacted with the panhandlers. The majority report they do not receive sufficient income to put food on their tables.
The large foodbanks serve clients once every three months, and, they provision enough food for 3 days. Foodbanks have seen a large increase in the numbers of people with children accessing their services.
Most of the panhandlers have gone to foodbanks where they see hungry children and they decide to resort to begging for change. The panhandlers do not want to take the food away from the children. This is called showing compassion.
I believe a few individuals behind this campaign have an ulterior motive. Why, what would the motive be?
Read the news article which can be found on our Street Help page. The title of this article tells all “Advocate tours Windsor, hopes to help homeless coalition”.
A fake patrol, with fake patrollers!
My agency has provided this service for almost 12 years.
Cathy Crowe was not informed of our programs and services and she was also not told about Windsor’s largest soup kitchen the Mission.
It is apparent to me that this big hullabaloo is simply another attempt to force government to fund another agency to duplicate my agency’s service.
We ensure the panhandlers and the homeless are provided the information they need to access all available services our community has to offer.
For those who would like to see our outreach patrols increased, we would be more than happy to provide an increase in service if our funding were restored.
One parcel of funding we received was used to hire the homeless and pay them to patrol the areas they are familiar with, interact with the homeless and share specifics e.g. what ID they need to access to service, how long they can access the service etc.
The homeless will readily trust one of their own as opposed to a social worker and this should not be dismissed.
For those who would like to provide us more coffee cards, McDonald’s cards, etc. we would greatly appreciate it.
Some homeless people “will work” for food our homeless patrollers proved that.
What’s interesting is that I’m not so sure the original offence taken by my comments was proper
At first i was made to feel that when I said some agencies did not agree with unit 7 that This was an outrageous statement and I should reveal my source. Now it appears there is inter agency infighting over funding
It was said that consequences of my actions would lead to people freezing on the streets but now we know there are few if any homeless panhandlers and None who are denied beds
Chris S, directed towards you. t also seems like I’m not the only one who wants to start implementing actions without understanding the entire Windsor problem and without studies showing the full consequences of my proposals. What data an studies can unit 7 provide that show their methods are all proven beyon any doubt. Not trying to be a smart ass but wouldn’t you say this organization should meet the criteria befor action that you set out for the BIA?
Not only doni continue to admit that I know little about this area, but it seems that everyday I’m learning about how much more we all don’t know but
Need to learn
I hope that we can now focus on what areas do we have conflicting
Last day posting on iPhone
Last sentence should read that we need to have all of these differences between social service providers cone to light and find out underlying cause of why govt wants to fund other agencies to do work of Unit 7
It seems like this may be happening on purpose and we should fond out why
As Ive been saying,I’ve only been able to go through this on Iphone.
When I get a chance this weekend I plan to take all the comments on this and Revy Kevy’s blog and summarize them into points of interest and questions for the May 25th meeting and when I get a chance to stop in to Unit 7 to have a discussion and learn more. My personal thanks to Chris Schnurr for the insightful comments and contribution to this conversation that I hope to see represented at any future meetings
There’s quite a bit of information to digest here. I think that by the end of next week the amount difference between then how little we knew at the start of this will be an amazing accomplishment in itself
Thank you everyone who has commented
I may be incorrect in my assessment, but I believe what Unit 7 is undertaking is both harm reduction and referral service. You can lead a horse to water, but if the horse doesn’t drink, your only option is reduce the harm.
Don’t forget responses to the proposal were based upon media reports, which is why I was encouraged to see various proposals being investigated in this posting. But I’ll add, a comprehensive and compassionate proposal should be implemented simultaneously; the absence of which can have unintended consequences.
It isn’t difficult to predict those outcomes as it’s simple economics. Being prepared for the outcomes will only serve both panhandlers as well as the downtown business community and residents better.
Thank you for the discussion. I hope everyone, both those involved and those reading walked away with a better understanding of both sides of the issue.
“Through Shelter, Support and Housing Administration, the City of Toronto funds and supports a variety of services for people who are homeless and marginally housed.
The City of Toronto Streets Needs Assessment conducted on April 19, 2006 found that dropin centres were the service most frequently used by homeless individuals.”
A look at every medium to large size community across Canada will reveal drop-in centres for the homeless are a necessity.
“A common conception about drop in centers is that they are unstructured environments where people “hang out” and find respite. While this is partially true, drop in centers have evolved into environments where people learn about recovery, access resources, develop self esteem and leadership skills, obtain employment and are becoming strong centers for advocacy. Some common activities at drop in centers include, but are not limited to: self-help group meetings, group meals, weekly or monthly socials or parties, social/recreational excursions, consumer speakers’ bureau, individual advocacy, systems advocacy, referral bank for mental health services, computer access and training, employment services, guest speakers/workshops, assistance with basic needs, consumer-run businesses, political events, and outreach programs (Technical
Assistance Guide on Consumer-run Drop-in Centers, National Mental Health
Consumers’ Self-Help Clearinghouse).”
What other statistical data is truly needed to support the ongoing need in Windsor to maintain and support the one and only drop-in centre for the homeless which has existed for 12 years?
Go to our page for links to the quotes.
@Christine:
“One parcel of funding we received was used to hire the homeless and pay them to patrol the areas they are familiar with, interact with the homeless and share specifics e.g. what ID they need to access to service, how long they can access the service etc.”
That is a great idea. Sometimes it takes one who has walked in their own shoes, to be able to establish trust and form the necessary relationship. Sometimes, some of the clients I served, felt I couldn’t identify with their situation - and sometimes they were correct. The trust was lost, and I never saw them again.
I’m really encouraged by all the ideas being expressed here by all.