The "Collaboration Capital"

Camping areas favored by residents experiencing homelessness  

Revised: December 2018

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

 

[Originally posted under the title "Poverty and Homelessness in the Collaboration Capital."]

I'm excited about the opportunity for the four jurisdictions to collaborate. This is another great example of leaders from these four areas saying, "Hey, let's get together and combine our knowledge and resources and come up with solutions that work for our region." -- Salem Mayor Anna Peterson (Williams, C. "Salem Creates Collaborative Homeless Initiative", Statesman Journal, 10 January 2016.)

Mayor Peterson was fond of saying that Salem is the "collaboration capital", but in reality, it is anything but.  The Reaganesque-libertarian view that poverty and homelessness are choices and that people who don’t like how they’re living should make better decisions is pervasive in Salem, and so is the view that poverty/homelessness is primarily the responsibility of “charities” (not government).  Salem residents tend to want to provide for immediate needs, piecemeal, through volunteer services.  

Needless to say, Salem has never developed a comprehensive approach to poverty or homelessness.

If Mayor Peterson, or her Mid Willamette Homeless Initiative Task Force, or anybody, aspires to "come up with solutions that work for our region", they need to know what they're up against.    

Much of Salem is poor: The federal poverty level for a 2-person household in 2016 was $15,930. In 2018, the federal poverty level for a 2-person household was $16,460.

In 2012, over 25% of all Salem (MSA or metropolitan statistical area) households earned less than $25,000 annually.  That figure is unlikely to have changed for the better since then.  Fifty-four percent of Salem renters are “housing burdened”, meaning they pay 30% or more of their income toward rent. 

To keep housing costs within 30% of income, a household in Salem had to earn almost $13/hr.  Thus, a one-parent, one-child household earning minimum wage would spend over 50% of income on rent and basic utilities in Salem.  Such housing burdened families are but one serious illness, accident, misfortune or misjudgment away from homelessness.

The Lee Mission

Salem's social services culture is entrenched: In keeping with its Methodist missionary history, Salem’s poverty programs, like much else in Salem, are largely parochial.  That is, they are “of, relating to, or supported by” Christian religious institutions and their members.  While this parochial aspect must be subsumed when a program also receives financial support from the city, county, state or federal government, it often remains evident in program names and locations (e.g. Congregations Helping People, St. Francis Shelter, Salem Interfaith Hospitality Network, Union Gospel Mission and Salvation Army, all of which receive or have received government funding).  

The connection to religious institutions (predominately, but not exclusively, Christian), and the relative success of responses like the Churches as Neighborhood (CaN) Center initiative in 2003, have tended to reinforce the perception of many that Christian charity is the answer to the problems of poverty.  Thus, the view of many in Salem is that poverty/homelessness is not primarily the responsibility of government, but "charities."  For that and other reasons, residents have over the years made few demands of their civic officials to do more than they do in the normal course of things, and civic officials have responded accordingly.

Everyone, but everyone, agrees collaboration is key to government, business, and non-profit success, however that term is defined.  Salem’s official reports to HUD repeatedly assert that the City and its service providers collaborate to fill gaps in services and avoid duplication.  But, until recently, the City's  reports did not give specific examples of its efforts.  Now they do, and now we can know just how much time the City spends "going through the motions."   

Salem’s social service workers have earned a reputation for being poor collaborators.  There are exceptions, of course, but, for various reasons, workers have tended to remain in their service silos, hoarding information, donors, and even resources, whether out of habit or complacence, or for fear of losing what few resources they have to a competitor, or ignorance, it doesn't much matter.  The problem is, nothing and no one is pushing them to behave otherwise.  

Salem does not measure outcomes:  Many poverty programs target particular demographics (e.g., youth, domestic violence/human trafficking/stalking victims, veterans, elderly, disabled, reentering felons, people with HIV/AIDS, people with addictions, people with mental health conditions, people with disabling literacy or language limitations, chronically homeless people and recently unemployed/homeless people).  

The unavoidable result is segregation and duplication of facilities and services, though providers usually claim this is is not true, "because we're not serving the same people."  But segregation and duplication of facilities and services not only makes collaboration in delivering services a challenge, it also makes it difficult (but not impossible) to determine how well the system is working overall.   

Salem has very little information on how well, or how poorly, its service delivery "system" is working.  The City's Federal Programs Division ensures minimal compliance with HUD grant requirements, which don't include impact or outcomes analysis.  The local Community Action Agency, which is responsible for collecting what should be relevant data, shares very little with the public.  There are a couple of reasons for this.  

One is that it's "extra" work (not "required" or perhaps paid for).  The other is it's taboo.  In a culture that relies on charities and religious institutions to provide for "the needy", you don't talk about performance measures or outcomes.  Not without coming across as rude or ungrateful.

Some providers get it:  Find them.  Work with them.  Culture change is hard, but not impossible.  Don't be afraid.  Maintain or raise your standards and expectations. Don't give in.