Analysis and Evaluation of IDA 2003 Draft Report (09/25-26/03) on New Orleans Homelessness.

The IDA Team downplays the significance of the number of mentally ill and/or addicted persons who are living on the streets. However, in IDA's August 2000 report, Addressing Homelessness: Successful Downtown Partnerships, they define the scope of the problem, stating, "Among the people living on the streets, an estimated 30 percent suffer from serious mental illness. Of these at least half are also victims of alcohol and/or drug abuse." (They do not estimate the number of addicted persons who do not suffer from serious mental illness, as IDA was contracted to address only the mentally ill. But, sociologist Anne Hendershott (2002) notes "that 65% of the homeless singles in New York City shelters tested by urinalysis showed positive results for drugs or alcohol. Of that group, 83 percent tested positive for cocaine.")

The Team makes an assumption about the New Orleans homeless population, despite the fact that "Supportable statistics on the demographics of homelessness seems [sic] to be missing." In fact, according to the 1996 study by Tulane University Medical Center School of Public Health Medicine and Project Reach, 39% of the 263 homeless adults interviewed reported substance or chemical abuse. Of the homeless men who have multiple medical conditions, nearly 70% suffer from substance abuse and 40%, mental illness. Although the data are not readily available, the number of mentally ill and/or addicted homeless people in New Orleans is significant.

The depiction of the homeless population as "people who may have been living on the margins for years and suffered a setback that put them on the street" - "trying to find their way to services like temporary shelters, support services, and meals"- resembles the profile of the temporarily down-and-out for whom public housing and housing assistance was created some 60 years ago. While public housing served the purpose of helping families recover and get back on their feet for some years, the well-intentioned public assistance program failed in the long-run. Public housing became a tar-pit that trapped generation after generation, condemning them to substandard living conditions, social and economic isolation, and "institutionalized" poverty. Similarly, the 1930's soup kitchen in today's society does nothing to end homelessness and, in fact, helps to perpetuate the unstable state of the homeless individual.

Homeless advocates traditionally claim that emergency shelters and soup kitchens must be centrally located in the downtown area because "that's where the homeless are." IDA states that homeless are on the streets downtown because services they seek and food are available there. In New Orleans, neither is accurate. Skid row no longer exists. IDA's picture of New Orleans' homeless and service providers is distorted. Ninty (90%) percent of these programs and services have "decentralized" and relocated outside of the DDD, with clusters in and around the medical center and in mid-city along Tulane Avenue. Acknowledging the redevelopment of the CBD, the IDA Team notes, "The leadership at Brantley is aware of the incongruence of their operation in this new environment and is interested in relocating and expanding at another location outside of the district." Only OZ continues to use the antiquated paradigm to justify its presence at 843 Camp.

The IDA's Technical Assistance Team, with their background in homeless services, perpetuates the service providers' myth. They depict New Orleans' homeless problem as a clash between "haves and have-nots" and of NIMBYism ("not in my back yard ism"), with the inevitable public response being inappropriate police action against the homeless. The report of the Technical Assistance Team is virtually excerpted from previous studies, with little specific attention to the uniqueness of New Orleans and even less historic perspective on the issues, the efforts, and the evolution of the problems that exist today in our city. They imply that anyone other than the "caring and talented homeless service provider" is ignorant or confused with respect to the causes of homelessness and the attendant issues, and that neighborhood residents and business owners can not (or do not) distinguish between the truly needy homeless and the serious social deviants. They reluctantly admit there are problems with "inappropriate street behavior" and that some incidents may involve clients of the homeless shelters and soup kitchens. They are quick to defend their peers and to blame the discord among stakeholders and the climate of mistrust on the "small number of residents in the warehouse district."

Finally, the day-to-day problems caused by the inadequacy, inappropriateness and poor management of the OZ were swept aside. The Team finds no flaws, inadequacy, or incongruence with the operation of OZ's soup kitchen. (Of course, we know how well the staff at OZ can "clean up" their act when company's coming.) Repeatedly, the Team report "puts down" the neighboring residents and business owners, overlooking (or perhaps just unaware) of neighbors' efforts and commitments - of time and money - as responsible parties seeking to find solutions. Here are just a few examples:

• •We've never looked at the facilities and their operations or we're just too dumb to know a good thing:

"While some stakeholders within the district disagree, the Technical Assistance Team, with its combined expertise and background, found that both the Ozanam Inn and the Brantley Baptist Mission were well-run shelter operations that were respectful of their impact on the surrounding area"

• •And, we've never attended meetings, worked on (and chaired) committees, donated and offered to raise money to implement solutions. We've also never been shunned and lied to:

"... among a subset of the downtown residential community, there seems to be a need to maintain an environment of finger pointing and blame, rather than one in which common solutions can be identified and all stakeholders can take responsibility for their part of the solution."

• •On the other hand, with their "combined expertise and background," they can discern all the "facts" in only 2 days, a brief site visit to shelters, and a sit-down with "the talented and committed professionals in the social service sector":

"Re-establishing a relationship with all the necessary stakeholders is impeded by misconceptions - This was particularly evident in terms of people's sense of the 'facts' regarding the Ozanam Inn and UNITY."

• •Although leadership at the Brantley is lauded for recognizing "the incongruence of their operation in this new environment," our candid expression of frustration and concern after 30 years of OZ's disregard for the neighborhood as well as for needs of the truly needy homeless and working poor was characterized as shallow and mean-spirited:

"NIMBYism is alive and well - The . . . Team was startled by the virulence with which a small number of residents of the warehouse district described the homeless . . . and the people using the facilities of the Ozanam Inn."

• •And, we are wrong to suggest that there's a problem with giving away free food in the park even though "Most experienced service providers know that this approach is counterproductive. . .": (Again, the Team shows its bias: we obviously have never recommended better coordination, more meaningful service, or alternative locations. And, we have never suggested student internships as a way to expand program and agency resources.)

"There was a good deal of criticism of the attempts by Loyola students to reach out to the homeless with back-of-the-truck sandwiches and coffee. . .rather than simply blaming, or writing-off the students' efforts, the DDD could serve as the broker of meaningful student internships with any number of the homeless service providers in the UNITY network."

• •In summary, the Team would not consider the Camp and Julia Coalition a "credible co-convener" for the "homeless road map" because we are clearly not among the stakeholders who are "willing to roll up their sleeves in partnership":

"Sadly, none of this matters if a minority of naysayers and obstructionists are allowed to set the tone and agenda for the DDD."