Early this year, I assisted a student competition among national college social science departments. These students competed by conducting research centered on homelessness in Santa Clara County. I worked with the City of San Jose to come up with the specific question of looking at the jurisdictions around the nation that have made significant progress over the last three years in reducing street-based homeless populations. Each had strong outreach components, so we asked them to find out what were the specific approaches that contributed to their successes, and how they were staffed and budgeted (e.g. did they receive new outside funding? Did they redeploy existing resources? Did they have many existing organizations collaborate? Or did they create a new centralized organization?). In the end, I was one of several judges they enlisted from around the country.
The answers from three groups that ultimately submitted projects were illuminating to me, not in their conclusions, but in how the general public – idealistic students, in particular – perceives this issue.
The first report I reviewed was by a group of social work graduate students in the California State University system. Instead of answering the question, they proposed a “completely different way” of approaching the “homeless problem,” with the use of multi-service centers that “empower the homeless.” They emphasized that homeless people need to be treated with dignity. I appreciated their care for the people they discussed, and the fact they wanted to try something different. However, in addition to not addressing the assignment, their report was under-researched, full of factual errors and inaccurate conclusions. I gave them an F and despaired for two weeks on the state of higher education in California.
The next report from a group of undergraduates in San Antonio concluded that more affordable housing was needed and community education was necessary. Had those not been their only solutions, I would have graded them higher than the C I gave. I remember a communications class I had in college. To address the “problem of affordable housing,” we ultimately proposed “education of the community” as the solution. (We didn’t even bother with increasing the supply). My professor immediately shouted “Hogwash! That’s a cop-out!” All four of us were gobsmacked and not a little offended, but he was right.
The San Antonio paper – and the recollection of my own experience with that particular ill-fitting solution – led me to realize I’ve made a particular generalization about solutions coming from college students, (but I realize it sometimes comes from people in human services, too). In general, most often young and in school expanding their own experience through education, college students seem to believe that if only other people were to learn the same things they are learning or already know, then those other people would look at the issue the same and believe the same. Then they’d behave differently than they do now, make different choices and the problem would go away. The world would be fabulous if that was all it took!
While I appreciate “community education” efforts to help dispel stereotypes and help people open their minds and hearts to an issue, they just don’t work when offered by themselves. And, unfortunately, because “community education” efforts alone so often fail, pesky legislation often results, because, despite all the new information out there to improve our behavior, choices and actions, people hold on to their earlier beliefs and behaviors.
The final submission from Santa Clara University actually answered the questions we asked. My judgments might have seemed to favor the “home team,” but the other judges from the East Coast agreed with me. We all noted it was the best organized and written, and the students provided possible solutions that were concrete actions, not merely based on hope for a change of heart.
These included increasing opportunities for unhoused people to access needed services closer to where they are (on the streets), rather than requiring them to go to a centralized office for appointments, which they most always miss. Some of what they proposed doesn’t require more money as much as it requires changes in policies and practices – new ways for departments and organizations to work together and communicate better.
Now, if only we could change the policies and practices … .
Columnist Dina Campeau is a wife, mother of two teens and a resident of Morgan Hill. Her work for the last seven years has focused on affordable housing and homeless issues in Santa Clara County. Her column will be published each Friday. Reach her at dc******@*****er.net.
