I understand women are treated especially harshly at the Rescue Mission. And if anyone complains, even nicely, they’re kicked out in the cold.

I would never give that place one penny of my money. The Campus is a much more humane place, IMHO.

The bigger story:

http://thehomelessguy.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/ouch-2/

Good luck. Hope it works out.

This is disconcerting. I do not want to continue giving to an organization that is practicing the opposite of what it preaches. But I’d like the whole story.

Are we sure this just isn’t a case of overloaded volunteers doing the best they can with limited resources? Kevin is implying a kind of malice that I’d rather not be part of, but it doesn’t feel right to me.

I’d like to get more context. Perhaps I’ll contact Mr. Walker.

I’d like to get more context, too. This is not the first complaint post I have read of Kevin’s…he also complains about the churches who help the homeless.

I don’t get people who constantly look a gift horse in the mouth.

Knowing Kevin’s view of a lot of things, I’m curious about “the other side” of this issue.

Frankly, judging from the “program guys” I’ve been around, perhaps they are “wise” to the whole homeless challenge.

And I’m not sure it is ever a good idea to kill oneself to make it (the transient life, for men particularly) too comfortable of a thing.

Kevin’s post is not representative of him “complaining” or looking a “gift horse in the mouth”.

It is his assessment of why many of the homeless would allegedly rather spend the night outdoors in the cold than in the rescue mission.

If you are in the business of helping people, it is good to know what areas you can improve on.

Having said that, I think it is pretty shitty of someone to complain about the charity that they are given. These people are volunteers who work hard, funded by people who also work hard. If somebody is giving you something, you should be grateful, even if what you are given is a Chevette, and not a Cadillac. The fact is, its a gift. If you didn’t freeze to death last night, you should be grateful for that. Don’t you think?

I have lived in a shelter myself, and while some people use it as a time to get back on their feet and recover, most others manipulate and never try to do better. That kind of stuff wears on the person who at one time might have been fired up and idealistic.

If the only purpose of the rescue mission is to give folks an option other than “freezing to death” I guess I see your point.

Channel 2 had a less than enlightening piece about this the other night. They talked to a group of popsicles who would rather sit outside in the sub-freezing chill than go in the shelter.

Homeless dude: It’s safer out here!

News dude: Why? What bad experiences have you had at the Rescue Mission.

Homeless dude: None. I’ve never stepped foot in there. I just hear it’s bad.

And from what I’ve heard, many clients of the NRM bristle at the strict rules and things like having to go to chapel each evening.

many clients of the NRM bristle at the strict rules and things like having to go to chapel each evening.

I know, I know, I’m not a christian (in the sense of the word you use), but I don’t see the biblical justification for forcing one to sit through a sermon in return for help. I’m not a fan of conditional giving in general though.

I hear you, dolphin. There’s a tension between exposing them to the real (in the opinion of those providing the service) solution for their need and just meeting their physical needs.

I think we’d all agree that each human has needs beyond the physical.

Seems to me, a place to nap during a sermon is not such a bad exchange for a free meal.

I hate to sound harsh and all but, this is not the Waldorf. If that’s what they’re looking for…well…

but I don’t see the biblical justification for forcing one to sit through a sermon in return for help. I’m not a fan of conditional giving in general though.

I really don’t care about “biblical justification”. (I am sure no one is surprised)

There is justification is giving the sermons if they are truly inspiring to the recipients. If they are finger wagging lectures, not so much. I would hope that those delivering the sermons would do so with a basic respect for the humanity of those listening, which I would define as one of the non-physical needs Ned alluded to.

Holy cow, I agree with Ror!

Wow!!!!

There’s a tension between exposing them to the real (in the opinion of those providing the service) solution for their need and just meeting their physical needs.

I’m not sure there is. I don’t see why both can’t be offered without one being a condition of the other.

I think we’d all agree that each human has needs beyond the physical.

That I think we can all agree on.

Seems to me, a place to nap during a sermon is not such a bad exchange for a free meal.

My objection has nothing to do with what’s “fair” for the receivers and everything to do with the motivation of the givers. Gifts offered in exchange for something else aren’t gifts, they’re trades. I don’t have a problem with trading, but don’t think the giver gets anywhere near the same spiritual growth from trading as they do from selfless giving.

We’ve been doing a study in tithing at my church this past month so giving is kinda in the forefront of my spiritual ponderings at the moment.

The motives of the Mission shouldn’t really be questioned. They may make mistakes. Who doesn’t. I am sure they operate on a small budget and their volunteers are overworked. Surely you guys don’t think people volunteer at the Mission because they are sadists.

dolphin and ror are right.

now, I need a drink.

Well, I have spent an hour mentoring the homeless . . . just kidding. But I have some experience with NRM (here) and (here, a report from the ‘06 party) and I’m inclined to conclude that many clients (including you, Kevin–no offense) would rather not hear much truth about their situation.

RoR!,
I agree that basic respect for humanity of those listening is crucial, and at the same time, one of the biggest needs is “dignity.” Especially over the long-term, coddling someone steals their dignity.

Especially over the long-term, coddling someone steals their dignity.

There is no greater crime than to cripple someone.

I highly recommend George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London for a picture of homelessness (WSR to the whole question of why so many homeless persons hate shelters) from the point of view of someone who was himself homeless temporarily. It was written almost 70 years ago, but the basic considerations don’t seem to have changed at all.

The book may also discourage readers from ever eating in an expensive restaurant, but that’s another question.

Ned:

Well, if Kevin is correct, the NRM is coddling people out the door, so no worries there.

One person’s “truth” is another’s “subjective value”. I believe I got that from you.

The book may also discourage readers from ever eating in an expensive restaurant, but that’s another question.

That might come in handy . . .

Seriously, I will add it to my reading list.

Well, I don’t believe that both persons are right, though.

Whether or not they’re right, the reality is that the persons offering the charity have a little bit better argument, don’t you think?

Whether or not they’re right, the reality is that the persons offering the charity have a little bit better argument, don’t you think?

The proof would be in the preverbial pudding.

Ned:
Proverbial. rather.

Don’t get commie cooties from that Orwell.

All I want to do, all I’ve ever tried to do, is to convey to people the realities of homelessness. My belief in doing so will actually cause the changes necessary, so that the barriers that hinder homeless people from getting out of homelessness can be removed.

As the people at the Mission yourself. They have often said that they purposely make the conditions at the mission uncomfortable - as they believe it motivates the homeless to get out of homelessness. But that approach has never been proven to work. The lack of such proof doesn’t stop them, though. All it really does is motivate homeless people to be homeless somewhere other than at the mission.

This was the policy 50 years ago when they started the mission - and it is similar to all missions across the country. And for all that the world has learned about how to treat people - the mission administrations, under the guise of “christianity” refuse to change their ways.

Re. Orwell, I didn’t say how long my reading list was

Kevin,
What’s the answer to overcrowding? (which, to be frank, cuts against your argument, as Yogi Berra famously said, “That place is so crowded, nobody goes there anymore).

They have often said that they purposely make the conditions at the mission uncomfortable - as they believe it motivates the homeless to get out of homelessness.

I don’t see the problem with this. Society doesn’t exist to encourage behaviours that are against society’s interests.

Jails are not comfortable because we don’t want people going to jail. We want to meet basic needs–food,clothing, shelter–but we’re not out to see that every prisoner has a Tempurpedic matress and bubblebaths with massage.

The NRM may not be the most wonderful place in the world, but it is a shelter from the storm. It’s a hot meal.

Wait, they also get free pudding?

The more I hear, the higher up my list of charities the NRM is moving.

They have often said that they purposely make the conditions at the mission uncomfortable - as they believe it motivates the homeless to get out of homelessness.

Or they could have recliners will the hole in the arm of the chair to put your beer in and big screen TV’s with a waitress to bring you free chips.

One day at a time Kevin. Free yourself.

They only get pudding if they first eat meat. How can they have any pudding if they don’t eat their meat.

How can they have any pudding if they don’t eat their meat.

With draconian rules like that, no wonder they feel like just another brick in the wall.

Damn conservatives, they always make it about personal responsibility.

Yeah The other day, a guy came to the mission and said he was just a new boy. A stranger in this town. Where are all the good times? Who’s going to show this stranger around?

We don’t need no education!

Look, the question is are we better off leaving the problem to well meaning, but amateur, do-gooders, or with publicly funded programs ran by professional social workers.

Believe it or not, there is evidence the latter approach actually represents a net cost benefit to communities that support them. Housing first is one example.

If you think that poverty and homelessness are “someone else’s problem” you are sadly mistaken.

publicly funded programs ran by professional social workers.

You mean like child services for example?

Ouch, Jay. Good one.

The homeless are everyone’s problem. Why, I had to step over one the other day and because of that layabout I nearly scuffed my boot! I was so delayed I barely had time to stop and spit on him.

Ron, you are one sick freak!

professional social workers.

Oxymoron

Call me a stickler, but it’s “Homeless have harsh words for Rescue Mission”

Unless, of course, “homeless” is one person.

Okay, *deep breath* now to read the actual post.

ROR, I don’t agree really. I think that government bureaucrats tend to be wasteful and the layers end up costing more money. They get just as tired and emotionally worn out as volunteers do also.

If you can set up a state program to evaluate the mental health of the people on the street and then figure out a way to help the ones who suffer from mental illnesses, then I’d support that, as long as it was on the state level.

Whether we hate homeless people, or we love homeless people (or you are somewhere in between) I think we can all agree that we want to see an end to homelessness.

So why not work towards that? Stop doing things that don’t work to end homelessness, and support those things that do. If one program has a higher success rate than another, then go with the one that works better, and end the one that doesn’t. Sounds like the capitalist system, doesn’t it? You like capitalism, don’t you - it means constantly raising the bar and building the better mouse trap, or better escape from homelessness, as it were.

Though we can find fault in a government run org is no excuse to trash it. There is no perfect system for anything. Just cause there are problems with our banking system doesn’t mean we ditch all banks. But we work on our banking system, constantly making adjustments to it to changes in demand, refining it, improving it.

The rescue mission’s answer, to solving homelessness, is indoctrination into fundamentalist christianity - something that fails much more often than it succeeds.

Over 3000 homeless men sot out help from the rescue mission. Of those 3000, only 174 completed the mission’s “program” Many of those were court ordered to attend the program. Still, as in past years, the majority of those 174 will be homeless again within a year.

That doesn’t sound like a very successful program does it?

If we want an end to homelessness, don’t we want the rescue mission to do more than just provide shelter? And if we say that all the mission is good for is shelter, then aren’t we only enabling homelessness?

Kevin, that is a much improved message.

No we don’t want to enable homelessness, but regardless of whether or not somebody wants help, I still don’t want them outside at night when it is seven degrees.

Charity with strings attached isn’t really charity, now is it?

Sure it can be.

“Rules” are implicit in “order” (what Kevin was referencing in his post), but I suspect you’re defining “rules” to be “strings.”

But beyond that, in a sense, as long as someone has the freedom to refuse to give something away, then they are attaching “strings” (as you seem to be using it) to their gift. But I suspect that “captain bringdown” doesn’t know much about the NRM.

Charity with strings attached isn’t really charity, now is it?

I guess you want to defend their rights to have free shelter and food without pesky sermons?

There is a big difference between a rule, such as no fighting, and a requirement, such as attending chapel.

Common sense civility is a problem for some homeless, but not for most. Confusing rules of behavior, with allowing supposed men of god to belittle you against your will, (some people actually seem to enjoy it) is one of the problems the mission needs to address. But the difference is something that the administration of the mission cannot comprehend.

But then again Kevin probably doesn’t know much about thw NRM

Hey, RoR!, you’ve changed your username? What gives?

I am almost certain that Kevin knows a lot about the NRM . . . the issue is his bias and authority to speak about what works best to “help” someone living as a transient.

Kevin, I guess you don’t see any connection between standards/rules and activities/expectations like sitting (at the least, still and quietly) through a chapel service?

Ror! is no longer with us.

He got dragged off in the middle of the night. Something about “enemy combatant” was mentioned. Last I heard he was sharing a cell with Zack de la Rocha.
Chalk one up for the forces of freedom.