Brewing Social Inclusion: An Advocacy Project for the Homeless Population in the Ann Arbor Community

Christopher Joseph SW 560.001 April 4, 2007

In Washtenaw County, 41 people – 14 of them children – will become homeless this week; 2756 people – 909 of them children – will be homeless in Washtenaw County at some time during the year (Ebron et al., 2006). While it offers adequate transitional housing, Ann Arbor does not offer adequate permanent affordable housing.1 In fact, according to the 2005 Washtenaw County Needs Assessment, affordable housing continues to decrease. Moreover, and contrary to common belief, 33% of homeless persons in Washtenaw County have jobs, but 56% of the employed earn $200 or less per week. (To pay the rent in Ann Arbor, one must have a job that pays a minimum of $15/hour (Ebron et al., 2006).) With housing costs higher than the national average, beating homelessness in Washtenaw County requires overcoming some unique barriers. Insufficient income, high housing costs, and a shortage of affordable housing contribute to and prolong homelessness. In Washtenaw County’s 2005 point-in-time survey, 64.8% of homeless respondents reported that the cause of their current homeless episode was multidimensional. Unemployment or insufficient income was the primary reason for 40.1% of homelessness respondents. However, homelessness was frequently attributed to health problems: 36.6% cited alcohol or drug use as a primary reason for their current homeless experience, 12% reported medical problems, 32.2% reported mental health problems, and 5.1% cited physical disability (Ebron et al., 2006). Not having reliable or fixed housing, living on the streets, having to survive inclement weather, experiencing under-nutrition, not having health insurance, not appropriately treating physical or mental illness, and inappropriately coping with stress only exacerbates a homeless individual’s

1

In 2004, 144 households, 192 individuals, and 25 families with children utilized Avalon Housing, a non-profit, community-based organization providing permanent affordable housing. Currently, Avalon does not have any vacancies, and due to the large number of applications received upon opening, no new applications are being accepted. The Delonis Center houses 50 adult men and women; Alpha House provides shelter to 6-8 families at a time; Ozone House ensures emergency shelter and transitional housing to 110 runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth.

1

risk for health problems. In other words, not only is illness a cause of homelessness, but illness can be caused by homelessness (Pleace, 1998). Admittedly, simply providing affordable housing would not ameliorate all of the problems the homeless population faces. When researching the causes of homelessness, I found myself asking, “Why is there a lack of affordable housing in Ann Arbor? What is keeping this affluent city from providing more?” The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce’s “Report on Affordable Housing in the Ann Arbor Area,” states, “Dramatic improvements in affordable housing supply are limited by the significant financial subsidy required per unit and the challenge of keeping units affordable” (2002). Comparatively high land costs, few developable sites, demanding development and construction fees and regulations, and a demand for the construction of higher priced homes which yield more profit to developers are other barriers explained by the report. However, beyond cost, land availability, and policy restrictions, the most mind-boggling barrier is the “not-in-my-backyard” mentality that “prevail[s] among community members when affordable housing communities or elements thereof are proposed” (Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, 2002). Not providing affordable housing to ensure that the homeless population remains invisible is an issue of silent discrimination, is unacceptable, and immediately needs to be addressed. Before eradication of homelessness in Ann Arbor can ensue, I believe the homeless experience must first be de-stigmatized. While I feel I can do very little as an individual to deconstruct barriers related to high land costs, available developable sites, strict construction regulations, and construction companies seeking economic prosperity, I feel confident in my ability to help dispel myths about the homeless being unemployed, indolent, societal deviants, and dangerous criminals. Ann Arbor is a relatively affluent society comprised of a diverse population of highly educated people. However, realizing that the lack of affordable housing is in part due to the desire to keep the homeless population at a distance disappoints me. 2

Acknowledgement of the homeless population’s existence could help reduce feelings of social isolation and stigmatization this population feels. Upon researching social isolation and the homeless population, one statement left a lasting impression: “Homelessness is a direct consequence of poverty and grossly unequal distribution of wealth and power, both globally and nationally” (Kellett & Moore 2003). Intrigued originally by the implications of being homeless in an affluent area, this definition helped elucidate possible solutions to homeless stigmatization occurring locally in Ann Arbor. Stigmatization of the homeless has resulted in social isolation – inadequate social participation and a lack of social integration (Pleace, 1998). Social isolation can have physical and emotional ramifications, resulting in depression, suicide, poor nutrition, decreased immunity, anxiety, fatigue, and social stigma. Strong correlations have been found between social isolation and such variables as depression, self-esteem, and wellness; the strongest being between isolation and depression (Fioto, 2002). Providing affordable housing will not resolve homeless stigmatization, social isolation, or the multitude of complications in which social isolation can result, but requires a social inclusion intervention strategy at the micro (individuals/citizens) and macro (community/infrastructure) level. While social inclusion could directly benefit the physical health, the mental health, and the self-esteem of the homeless individuals, this population is not the only group affected by their social isolation and increased potential for health problems. Business owners, for example, should share the belief that every citizen of Ann Arbor is a potential customer. If homeless individuals do not feel welcomed by a business, they may be less likely to patronize that business during and even after their homeless experience. Furthermore, since social isolation can result in decreased utilization of health care services, hospitals and other institutions that provide ambulatory services could endure crowded emergency rooms. Since medical care is the most expensive service homeless people use, Ann Arbor taxpayers and hospital staff bear 3

responsibility for increased health care prices and immense medical bills accrued by frequent users covered by Medicaid (Arnquist, 2006). Ultimately at stake is the psychosocial well-being of a community that ignores its marginalized groups’ needs. Defining homelessness in terms of distribution of wealth and power also helped me identify those people in Ann Arbor with social and economic power that could be involved and/or affected by an intervention to alleviate homeless stigmatization. As an avid coffee drinker, I frequent the coffee shops on and around the University of Michigan’s campus, and recognize that these are popular locations for socialization. While sitting in one of the local shops and brainstorming a plausible social-inclusion intervention, I thought to myself, “How can these people right here right now help de-stigmatize the homeless experience?” The answer was simple: these people, me included, could help by making this public social forum more available, welcoming, and tolerant of homeless people. However, to my knowledge, homeless people are not actively prohibited from coffee shops (for it would be unethical to have anti-homelesspersons policies) which negates my first possible solution. Finding a way to invite homeless people was the next logical, yet extremely complicated, solution. Who would do the inviting? What would the invitation look like or say? How would homeless people be identified or located? How would the invitations be distributed? The questions were endless, the answers obscure. However, after consulting a colleague, the idea of utilizing frequency cards as invitations was suggested. Frequency cards are wallet-sized cards provided by a coffee shop that is stamped each time a customer purchases a coffee. Upon filling the card, which usually requires 10 or 12 coffees/stamps, the customer will receive a free cup of coffee. By implementing a program requesting that customers donate their completed frequency cards to local homeless shelters before redeeming their free coffee, customers would be indirectly involved in the informal invitation of homeless individuals, thus acknowledging the existence of the homeless population 4

and providing a sense of social tolerance and an opportunity of social assimilation. However, such a program would not be absent of barriers or come without apprehension. Would customers be interested in such a program? After investing over $30 dollars in coffee with the expectation of receiving a free cup of their favorite latte, how willing would someone be to give up their frequency card? How would the homeless obtain the frequency cards? How tolerant of the homeless population are Ann Arbor citizens currently? While captivated by the notion of coffee-consuming Ann Arbor citizens bestowing to the homeless population an item that required personal and financial investment, I had to explore the willingness of these citizens to do so. I created a simple eight question survey through Formsite, an easy-to-use service for creating online web forms and surveys (Appendix A), and invited 448 people to complete it for me through Facebook, an English-language social networking website that allows anyone with an email address to connect to a participating network (Appendix B). Admittedly, the invited sample (college age students 18-30 years) – of which 206 people responded – represented only a subset of the population that would need to be targeted for such a program to be implemented. Furthermore, I recognize the sample was comprised primarily of my peers, colleagues, friends, friends of friends, and acquaintances that might share my similar values and interests which would only further limit the accuracy of the coffee-consuming patrons which I hope to target (evidence in support of this limitation can be seen in Appendix C, a list of questions/comments/concerns provided by some biased and non-biased respondents).2 If conducted again, surveying patrons of the local coffee shops would most likely diversify the respondent sample and be more representative of the stake holders in this issue.

2

I should mention that while the survey was formally sent to 448 of my personal contacts, I made sure to keep the survey as part of a global event, meaning it was accessible to everyone with a Facebook account. The survey was conducted anonymously, and I have no way of knowing who completed it. One respondent’s comment informed me of his location in Boston, proving that this survey method has potential to reach a variety of unknown respondents and networks of which I am not affiliated.

5

Nevertheless, this survey did provide me some statistical data illuminating the current use of “frequency cards” and the level of willingness to begin using them/begin donating them if such a program were to be launched (Appendix D). Of the 206 people surveyed, 74 people (35.9%) currently use “frequency cards.” Of these, 64 (86.5%) would be willing to donate a completed frequency card to a local homeless shelter. Only 7 respondents said they would be less willing to begin using “frequency cards” if they knew it would provide the homeless with a free cup of coffee; 139 (67.4%) reported they would be more willing. While a slight majority of respondents are more willing to start using “frequency cards” to provide a homeless person a cup of coffee, 182 respondents (88.3%) were supportive of a similar program that would instead provide a homeless person an extra meal.3 Undoubtedly, economic factors, such as limited income, make it difficult to participate in some social activities, and the purchase of a cup of coffee is no exception. From a business perspective, I can understand the apprehension to allow a group in society with little or no money to occupy valuable space for other potential paying customers.4 I can also understand the concern for a safe environment given the high rate of substance abuse and mental illness among the homeless population in Ann Arbor. However, if the “frequency cards” are collected and provided to the Delonis Shelter which is substance free, occupied by those working or actively searching for work, and rich in resources to help correct mental health and substance abuse

3

Initially, this project was going to advocate for both social inclusion and improved nutrition of the homeless population. If this program were to ever by established, or if I decide to further pursue this intervention, I would still hope to target the coffee shops on campus, but might request that the “frequency cards” be redeemable for, say, a glass of orange juice, a muffin, or a couple pieces of fresh fruit. I would also target restaurants in and around Ann Arbor that provide “frequency cards” as well. There exists much evidence on the shortage of key vitamins and minerals in the diet of the homeless which, in conjunction with mental illness and poor medical adherence that results from social isolation, can intensify health problems (Strasser et al., 1991; Malmauret et al., 2002).

4

While it may be apparent, it should be noted that coffee shops would not be losing money on this program. “Frequency cards” are already available in many coffee shops, and free cups of coffee are already being provided to those customers that complete them. This program would have as little effect on the accrued profit as would a patron lending their completed “frequency card” to a friend who has forgotten her wallet.

6

issues, one can expect that the “frequency cards” would be distributed to more rational and more personally concerned homeless people. My desired outcome is to help make the transition out of homelessness a more successful and less traumatic process. With the “frequency cards” and an invitation to have a free cup of coffee, the homeless may actually feel supported by a reputable portion of the Ann Arbor community while also having the opportunity to share a conversation and create comradeship with other homeless individuals. Psychosocial involvement, meaningful activities, one-to-one company, and informal support were among some of the interventions identified by some homeless to aid in the alleviation of isolation and loneliness, to enable rebuilding of a life after homelessness, to develop new roles, and to promote psychological well-being (Willcock, 2003). Unfortunately, part of the experience of homelessness is the feeling of being socially and culturally excluded (Kellet & Moore, 2003), and I do not believe that this need be the case. It is disappointing that Ann Arbor limits affordable housing to keep the homeless away, especially considering how significantly motivating and empowering it can be to have the goal or desire to possess a home, a route into the social and cultural ordinariness of life (Kellet & Moore, 2003). Ownership of material things and of money, the comfort of a social life, of a place to live, of good-health, and the warmth of social inclusion are amenities the general public can take for granted. If Ann Arbor will not provide more affordable housing, why not at least allow the homeless to experience the warmth of social acceptance over a warm cup of coffee?

7

References Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. (2002). Report on affordable housing in the Ann Arbor area. Retrieved on March 25, 2007, from: http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/community_development/plans_re ports_data/chamber_of_commerce_hsg_report_2002. Arnquist, S. (2006 June 10). Nowhere to go: Expensive health care undercut when homeless patients return to the street with no resources to recuperate. Retrieved on March 28, 2007, from: http://www.saraharnquist.com/chroniccare.html. Ebron, S., Haradon, S., & Phinney, R. (2006). Appendices to the policy report: Washtenaw County’s homeless population: a descriptive analysis of the 2005 point-in-time survey of homeless persons (Technical Report for Policy Report No.6). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, the University of Michigan. Fioto, B. (2002). Social isolation: important construct in community health. Geriatric 0ursing, 23(1). Kellet, P. & Moore, J. (2003). Routes to home: homelessness and home-making in contrasting societies. Habitat International, 27: 123-141. Malmauret, L., Leblanc, J., Cuvelier, I., & Verger, P. (2002). Dietary intakes and vitamin status of a sample of homeless people in Paris. European Journal of Clinical 0utrition, 56: 313320. Pleace, N. (1998 March). Single homelessness as social exclusion: the unique and the extreme. Social Policy & Adminstration, 32(1): 46-59. Strasser, J.A., Damrosch, S., & Gaines, J. (1991). Nutrition and the homeless person. Journal of Community Health 0ursing, 8(2): 65-73. Washtenaw County Needs Assessment. (2005). Retrieved on March 23, 2007, from: http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/community_collaborative/needs_as sessment_full_report/CNA_FullReport.pdf. Willcock, K. (2003). Journeys out of loneliness: the views of older homeless people. Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from: http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5FBCA99A2EED-4C7B-B850-3A495C52C9E3/0/journeys_out_of_loneliness.pdf.

8