Social Progress? October 23, 2008

                        Response: Mayor Schell’s Zero Homeless Family Pledge

 

The main issue at the core of “Mayor Shell’s Zero Homeless Family Pledge,” by Eileen Norton, J.D. and Thomas Weeks, Ph.D., is the significant number of homeless living on the streets of Seattle in the late nineties. The challenge became the ability of public administrators to actually facilitate his promise that, “there will be no homeless families with children or homeless single women on the streets of Seattle by Christmas 1998.”  Norton and Weeks explore the discrepancies between the optimistic ideal of eradicating these forms of homelessness in Seattle and the reality of initiating the programs necessary to meet this end. First, the history of homelessness in Seattle, the political background, and the social action taken to meet the needs of the homeless population are presented. Data collected from the city, county and areas surrounding the county are used to emphasize the various issues facing any program or individual wishing to change the way homelessness is dealt with in Seattle. Focus is then placed on the immense personal and professional differences between elected Mayor Paul Schell and Homeless Coordinator for the city and public administrator, Alan Painter. Finally, the limitations on the potential success of this project are described from Painter’s perspective.

In a top down model, implementation of Mayor Schell’s pledge is reliant on the work of public administrators such as Alan Painter.  Painter is described as “‘a good bureaucrat’ who knows how to make government work effectively.” A capable and tenured public administrator, Painter is familiar with the back-story of homelessness in Seattle and the efforts the will be necessary to aid in eliminating these specific forms of homelessness within the city.  Mayor Schell is described in a different light. Demonstrating, “a penchant for publicly testing partially developed ideas” with a “willingness to take risks” are a couple ways in which Shell’s lack of expertise is described.  “While he talked about housing affordability often during the campaign, homelessness was rarely mentioned.” The authors show that the Mayor is not familiar with the plight of the homeless in Seattle, nor is he suited to gauge the scope of this problem in order to make his pledge reasonable. Implementation of this proposal will, therefore, be reliant on the skills and performance of public administrators with little direction from the Mayor.

Regardless of the challenges facing the administration, efforts must be made to resolve the concerns of the Mayor and to at least attempt to meet the standards set in his Zero Homeless Family Pledge. The steps proposed by the King County Community Homelessness Advisory Committee to facilitate the eradication of homelessness were;

 

“to build a more regional, client-focused, coordinated network of homeless services. The strategies call for maintaining but not increasing the existing shelter capacity at this time…[to] allow additional resources to flow to other needed services and housing. It is vital that the community place attention on those housing and services that help people regain long-term stability and address the underlying causes of homelessness… be more proactive in preventing homelessness…[E]mphasize approaches that follow clients as they progress throughout the continuum of care…[D]irect resources toward sub-groups of the homeless who are underserved relative to others, including children in homeless families, single men and both youth and adults who are leaving institutional settings.”   

 

These noble goals could also be utilized to deliver Schell’s promise. The pledge is vague and does not give structure to the ways in which public administrators should address this goal.

The groundwork for resolving homelessness concerns in Seattle is dependant upon greater tractability of the problem. Technical difficulties include conflict between the Mayor’s promise and some of the “guiding strategies” proposed by the King County Community Homelessness Advisory Committee, costs of increasing shelter capacity, increased scrutiny of the homeless population and various outlying conditions over which the city can not control. Another major challenge is the hard resolution to have no homeless families or single women on the streets by Christmas. The absolute nature of this declaration makes it an unattainable goal, as there is no definitive way to assure it is met. Defining success in such a limited manner assures that this program will fail. Utilizing variations of this goal or applying a looser ending date may enable public administrators to create and implement a program that can reduce the number of families and single women living on the streets of Seattle but there is no possible way to officially eradicate these forms of homelessness.

With little guidance to give structure to the implementation process public administrators are left without; clearly ranked legal objectives, financial resources, hierarchical direction or integration, no clear leadership or decision makers to follow, rules, official commitment to objectives or the ability to access support or direction from outsiders. By making his pledge on June 2, 1998 and promising to end certain types of homelessness by Christmas, Schell only gives a start and an end date. He does not describe the methods, tools, resources or leadership direction that will or can be used to enact his promise.  “Seattle’s been extraordinarily successful in leveraging state and federal money for initiatives,’ Painter said, ‘Unfortunately, what we’ve all learned is that it takes a long time to get things done.” This information will impact the ability of the city to meet Schell’s deadline given the fact that they only will have six months to plan, prepare, and implement his pledge.

The other variables to consider in the implementation of this pledge include continued public support. The assistance given to homelessness included 7.8 million in services for homeless including emergency shelter and transitional housing, emergency food services, housing-related social services, and numerous tax levees to fund low income public housing. Having already committed public funds towards eliminating homelessness, constituents may not be willing to continue to endorse such a program. Especially when considering the immense levels of funding required for a short-term project with lasting repercussions that has no clear organizational structure. Constituency groups may reject this agenda due to the fact that it conflicts with some of the basic tenants previously designed by the Advisory Committee to meet the needs of Seattle’s homeless population. If Schell continues to make grand statements with little backing or research on which to found his claims, he may fall out of political favor. Therefore any program which he initiated my also fall under political fire and is at risk to be cut. Fortunately, the leadership skills and commitment of the implementing officials, such as Alan Painter may work towards Schell’s advantage to successfully meet this goal.

I would argue that it is first important to recognize that a public official should not make bold promises to constituents without being able to produce a plan to facilitate that pledge. However, that already being the case, the first step would be to locate resources. What programs and projects already exist, what work is currently underway towards this end, and who will the key players be in resolving this issue. I would utilize the preferred strategies described by the King County Community Homelessness Advisory Committee and work to ensure that funding exists to smooth the progress of these initiatives. Unfortunately, I believe it will be impossible to complete this project within the timeline suggested. However, work towards that end can begin which will progress to eventually decrease the number of families and single women living on the streets of Seattle.

International Social Justice September 27, 2008

When I honestly think about the presence of torture and preemptive military strikes in the world, I see the face of this child in my mind’s eye and wonder if a utopian world is possible. Then when I think of military strategy and economic progress, I see a child that looks like a little me. I wonder if biological warfare and ethnic cleansing really matter because they’re happening in some one else’s country far away from every harming this little girl. But then my mind’s eye shifts and I see both little girls standing side by side and realize that they look a lot alike. I think in a world where one wears designer jeans and the other works 19 hours a day to make clothing for others, who is more wealthy? And why should one go to sleep to dream of hunger and injustice while the other sees visions of security that enable her the luxury and arrogance to think she has the right to place value on another person’s life?