 | Topics: Religion & Community (cross-referenced) Good Shepherd Alliance Combats Homelessness
in Loudoun County, Virginia Confronted with the problem of homelessness in this northern Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., local ministers started to build upon the relationships that they had with civic organizations, local businesses and developers. They eventually created an alliance that mobilized assets from every part of the community, involved the homeless in running the organization, worked with the county, and nurtured independence and self esteem through vigorous efforts to keep work and training opportunities available. President Reagan honored them with a Private Sector Initiatives Citation. Stories. Contents Story: Good Shepherd Alliance Combats Homelessness
Story: Homelessness and NIMBY—Through the Looking Glass Story: Good Shepherd Alliance Combats Homelessness Story written by: Jeanne Calabro, May 1995 When we assembled in a room in the county office building in the Fall of 1984, we were responding to a county crisis of homelessness, but had no clear idea of what we should do other than build upon our own relationships in the community. The person who had organized the meeting was Charlie Grant, a Baptist minister and chaplain of the Sterling Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad. Charlie had invited a few other ministers and laypeople from other churches, a lieutenant in the Sheriff's department who knew the chaplain, the chairman of community relations at Xerox whom he had met through his printing business. He also invited the Director of the Salvation Army, a county social worker and county housing coordinator, as well as someone from the Board of Supervisors. Charlie invited me because he knew that I was a community activist who could type, and I soon became Secretary. We thought that we could at least coordinate services, but soon found that the problem was much larger than we had thought, and the typical shelter strategies were inordinately costly and bureaucratic. After six months, we realized the futility of these and began to reach back into the relationships that brought us together in the first place. We approached developers, whose own workers often counted among the homeless, and worked with them in the spirit of mutual responsibility to address this problem. They then came up with a proposal to help other homeless in the county, namely, to use as shelters those homes that were on the land slated for development, but that usually lay unoccupied for two or three years before new building. Once we got the structures, church groups, Boy Scouts and high school students volunteered to fix them up. A trash company offered to haul trash. A local hospital donated mattresses and linens. Appliances, paint and construction materials were all donated. Community volunteers developed an elaborate transportation system to ensure that those in the shelters could still get to work or training. We got local companies to offer further jobs and training. The early childhood education program at the community college set up a program for homeless preschoolers. Most importantly, we continued to see homeless people as members of our community, as our neighbors, and we encouraged volunteers to see themselves not as doing things for the homeless, but as working with them. We saw this as the dignified approach, and always tried to involve our homeless neighbors in taking on responsible roles in the shelters and in our organization, and in maintaining connections to paid work in the community as a source of independence, wherever this was possible. And while we worked collaboratively with county social services, we avoided taking on roles that would lead us to treat the homeless as dependent clients with low self esteem and personal responsibility. Story: Homelessness and NIMBY—Through the Looking Glass by Jeanne Calabro, a community activist who helped found the Good Shepherd Alliance and served as its first secretary. Background Where I live in Sterling, Virginia, a northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC, a lot of new housing developments have gone up within the last ten years. Just twenty years ago, this area was mostly one big cow pasture, and the county was known for its large farms and estates, and its villages, including the Quaker village of Lincoln. Nothing much has changed in the western part of Loudoun County. The residents there wanted to keep things pretty much as they always were, so they sold their development rights to landowners in the eastern part of the county, which is not very far outside of the Washington, DC beltway. Jack Kent Cook, the owner of the Washington Redskins, and many other wealthy and well-known people live in the western part of the county. Several large companies, such as Magnavox, the Xerox Training Center, and United Airlines also are located in Loudoun County, mostly between Sterling, which is the easternmost town, right next to the border with Fairfax County, and Leesburg, the county seat. We live in Loudoun County, rather than Fairfax County which is closer to Washington, DC and the metropolitan Maryland area, which is where my husband works, because real estate was less expensive here, and the tax rate was half what it is in Fairfax County. In addition, Sterling is not an incorporated town, as many places in Fairfax County are, so we do not have town assessments in addition to the county property tax we pay. Still, our small three-bedroom house cost us $93,000 in 1981. Most houses in eastern Loudoun County now cost between $90,000 and $300,000. Available apartments are scarce, and there is a five-year waiting list for housing for low-income people (section 8 housing). Most other residents of Sterling have similar reasons for living there. They work in Washington, DC, or the metropolitan area, and include workers in government agencies, senior legislative staff members, military officers, intelligence officers, and diplomatic staff from the various embassies. Many people who work in Washington, DC agencies can't even afford to live in Loudoun county and move further out to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, where a commuter train transports them to work. I suspect that the waiting list for low-income housing would be longer, but most low-income workers either commute by car from West Virginia, where real estate is relatively cheap, or seek services in Fairfax County. Because the tax rate in Fairfax County is higher, they offer a great many more services to their residents, including low income housing, homeless shelters, and a wide array of social services. The residents of Loudoun County have asserted forcefully their opposition to any tax increases; most residents feel they will not be able to afford such an additional burden, as they are struggling to pay the mortgage on their house. They are working to identify and develop creative affordable housing options; however, there is a sensitivity regarding anything which is perceived to have the potential for lowering housing values. Since these issues are of concern to residents, nearly everyone is informed and aware of the problem, which has been characterized in county hearings as "economic apartheid," and which expresses itself at its extreme as homelessness. There are many reasons why there are homeless people in Loudoun County. There are many jobs in our community which attract unemployed workers, but they often arrive without an awareness of how difficult it will be to obtain affordable housing. Often marital breakups produce single, female-headed families without the means to secure or maintain housing. In addition, many families lose housing due to layoffs, unemployment, or overwhelming medical expenses. There are also people subject to a wide range of other sources of personal instability: alcoholism, drug addiction, or mental illness. Although 90% of the homeless people in Loudoun county were county residents when they became homeless, and many have lived in the county all their lives, we also have homeless people who had to leave shelters in Fairfax County because their 30-day maximum stay requirement ran out before they could locate housing or space in another shelter. Other special circumstances cause a trickle of the homeless from Washington, DC, or the Dulles International Airport, which is at the edge of Loudoun County. Getting Started: Building on Relationships We were quite a motley crew when we assembled in a room in the county office building in the Fall of 1984. The person who had organized the meeting was Charlie Grant, a Baptist minister and chaplain of the Sterling Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad. Also there were Lyman Eddy, a pastor of the Leesburg Community Church and chaplain for the Sheriff's department; a member of the social activities committee of another church; a lieutenant in the county Sheriff's department; the chairman of the community relations committee at Zerox; the director of the Salvation Army in our area; a county social worker; a county housing coordinator; and a staff member for the county Board of Supervisors. I was there because Charlie, who had organized the meeting, knew me to be a community activist who could type. In addition, Charlie had invited reporters from the local newspapers and the radio station for an interview prior to the meeting, and one reporter stayed for the meeting. We were there because everyone was dealing with homeless people, trying to help them, separately, and the individual resources were running out with the cold winter soon to begin. The plan was to coordinate resources so that more effective assistance could be offered. There were no homeless shelters in Loudoun County. Most homeless people were being referred to Charlie, who would help anyone he could. For instance, if a deputy patrolling an area saw a homeless person or family, he would call Charlie, or if there was someone who didn't fit the eligibility requirements of county, state or federal assistance programs, social services would call Charlie. Charlie was qualified to coordinate help because he cared about homeless people, and he knew other people who cared who might be able to help when he couldn't, which is why he was called first.. Because he owned and operated a printing business, he knew other businessmen in the area who could contribute time or resources and were directly affected by the issues of the homeless, because homeless people hung out at the business or parked there overnight; because he printed their materials and had chaired the Affordable Housing Commission, he knew the politicians who shaped housing and social services policy; because he was a minister, he knew other church leaders who he could refer the homeless to when he did not have the needed resources or they required counseling and services by someone of their own faith; because he was chaplain of the Volunteer Fire Department and Rescue Squad, he was aware of how to call upon volunteer help, what community services were available, and how to deal with the county government for social services. Most of all, Charlie was aware of the people, whether businessmen, politicians, church leaders, government or volunteer workers, who lived in the community and cared about helping those in need. When he could, Charlie would dig into his pocket and find money for a meal, or a night at a local motel, or he might have space in a camper he had parked in his backyard. Since he was well entrenched in the community, he might also find a sympathetic realtor, or possibly a family willing to take someone in. County staff were often besieged by Charlie in an effort to squeeze out services for a needy family or individual. Of course, other churches had their share of members or people referred by members needing help, and the Salvation Army had a rental assistance program, but everyone was trying to do the impossible. Charlie's pockets were empty. Housing services had a long waiting list. The Salvation Army had funds, but no way to coordinate the delivery of services. Charlie could not do it alone; there needed to be an organized way to ensure that homeless people got the help they needed. So, the Loudoun County Emergency Housing Alliance was formed to meet what was originally conceived to be short-term emergency housing needs of county residents. Mobilizing Our Community's Assets Initially, then, it was a very narrow conception. The Alliance would coordinate the resources available from the county (which also administered state and federal programs), area churches, and private businesses. These resources would be available for those needing a motel room for a short (two week maximum) time. I was the Secretary of the organization, and I will report what happened. We had three tasks. One was to raise funds to increase resources. Another was to develop a relationship with area motels willing to provide discounted accommodations, and finally we needed to develop a system for evaluating the needs of homeless people and administering the program to meet them. Doing all this seemed like a monumental task for just a handful of people to accomplish, but we were helped by the newspaper and radio coverage, and the fact that most people wanted to help. Our fundraising efforts were successful. One church donated $100 each month. Magnavox also gave us monthly donations. Others gave more sporadically; we got a large amount of Christmas and end-of-year annual donations. A "Helping Hands Club" was formed at the Sterling Middle School for junior high students to contribute things that were needed, including Christmas presents for children at the shelter. No-one wanted to see homeless people suffer the winter without a place to stay. Of course, we quickly found out that we hadn't been seeing a lot of the homeless people. Construction workers lured to jobs offered by the thriving housing development market, found no available single room occupancy housing and had been living in tents in the woods. Unemployed veterans were coming to our county to accept jobs secured for them by an agency working out of Dulles Airport. They had resorted to digging foxholes, covering them with tarps, and sleeping in them, then using gas station restrooms to ready themselves for work the next morning. Both groups ate little to send as much as possible home to their families. Many homeless people and families were living in their automobiles, parking them at area businesses for the night. These were not short-term problems, as we discovered. After six months of monthly meetings characterized by asking and granting of permission for people to stay in hotels longer than the specified two weeks, we realized the futility of this approach. At $30 per night (a discounted rate for the DC area), it cost $900 a month to house an individual or family in a motel room. We quickly arranged to tour a nearby Fairfax County-run homeless shelter and meet with the Director of a Salvation Army homeless shelter contracted by Fairfax County to explore these options and the difficulties and limitations of this approach. Over time, we developed a creative, alternative approach that required a variety of community and county changes and contributions, and which led to an evolution of our organization as well. We asked developers to provide housing for their workers, and they rented apartments and furnished it with bunkbeds or just mattresses on the floor. In this process, we worked with developers, asking them to identify and provide a solution that they found reasonable. They were willing to be responsible for their workers, and we sometimes assisted them by providing shelter for some construction workers when space was available. This process of cooperation produced strong allies among the developers whose awareness, understanding and assistance became integral to addressing the remaining problems. That this was achieved through cooperation and mutual responsibility was fortunate, because it yielded good will between us. The alternative would have been compliance by the builders to formal policy reform and codes, which is not always voluntary and does not necessarily yield good will or mutual cooperation. The developers began offering the use of homes on land eventually slated for development. Two or three or more years often lapsed between the acquisition of land and the start of construction, when existing buildings would be demolished. In the meantime, we could use the homes as shelters for individuals and families. The builders would lease them to us for one dollar a year, and an insurance agent offered us a million dollars of lease insurance for $300 a year. He was willing to take the risk because if the building were destroyed, the builder agreed not to consider it a loss. As we acquired the buildings and started moving people into them, other needs surfaced, which required creative solutions as well. We needed people to direct and coordinate services, contacts, and activities at the shelters. Often, we found, a suitable, mature homeless person was available who was capable and willing to be that person. From the savings that started accumulating from phasing out the motel program, we could afford to pay this person a small wage for his work. In many cases, volunteers filled in, or performed other duties, such as reading to children, or general office work and record-keeping. We realized that a separate approach was needed for the homeless veterans, most of whom refused to use the services of a homeless shelter. The largest house which had become available was set aside for use as a boarding house, and a single man could obtain a room for $50 a month, sharing the kitchen and bathrooms, and also sharing necessary chores and house maintenance. The boarding house operated independent of the shelters.. For the shelters, they first needed to be made liveable. Church groups, other groups such as Boy Scouts, and families and individuals such as high school students from the community volunteered to clean the houses, and fix up the yards. A trash company offered to haul the trash. The local hospital donated mattresses and linens. A fuel company filled the oil tanks at a discount. Much repair work and painting was done by people who just stopped by to see how they could help. Paint and construction materials were donated by local builders. Appliances such as working washers and dryers, freezers and refrigerators, and TV sets were donated by companies and individuals. Individuals donated their trucks and labor to pick up these appliances and install them. Homeless people also need to eat. Whereas there were churches and organizations that were willing to bring a meal in once a week, or who sponsored soup kitchens at certain times, these services were not adequate to provide regular meals. So we connected with a food bank, and a local storage company offered trucks to pick up the food once a week and refrigerated storage lockers to store it in. Local grocery stores offered overstocked bread and baked goods, milk and meat. The refrigerators and shelves were kept filled with food as a result. Now, homeless people could prepare their own meals and snacks. In addition, the Elks Club filled boxes with food that was needed for special dinners at Christmas and Easter time. Also, all of the homeless people we served were either working, or involved in training or rehabilitation programs. They needed transportation in order to commute to work, participate in programs, search for housing, or do personal errands, such as visiting their child's teacher at school, or going to the bank. Volunteers willing to provide rides were available much of the time. However, it became clear that working vehicles were necessary to fill in the gaps when volunteers were less available (times like early morning, noon, or early afternoon, when children were leaving for or coming home from school). Every month we would circulate to community groups, churches, businesses, local newspapers and the radio station a list of specific items that we needed, such as vehicles, computers, cleaning supplies, furniture or disposable diapers, or services, such as car repair, child care, furniture pickup, or rides. We rarely needed to purchase anything we advertised for. Vehicles were no exception. We soon began getting donations of used automobiles and vans. Sometimes they would need some repair in order to provide dependable transportation, but we had offers from mechanics to donate their labor. Other needed help provided by the community including a wide range of services. Companies offered jobs and on-the-job training to homeless people. A dentist donated his services. Local banks held holiday parties for the children to give the parents some free time. Teachers donated winter coats. A Boy Scout held a book drive for children's books, so each child could own their own book. Another held a penny drive, and others built shelves in the shelters. A pharmacist provided discounted medicine on credit, and people or groups would periodically pay off the tab. The early childhood education program at the community college set up a special program for the homeless preschoolers. Xerox offered their filming services for producing promotional and training films. Lawyers donated their services as well. With all these donations, we realized that we needed to become a nonprofit organization to avoid incurring a tax obligation. This posed an unforeseen obstacle, even though we clearly met the relevant criteria. First of all was the large fee associated with the application, which meant diverting our resources from providing services. Many of the donations we received were tangible property or services. Of the funds we received, many were earmarked, so several hundred dollars was hardly a simple matter. However, the worst was to come after we submitted our application with a check for the fee attached. Several months after submission, we received a request for additional information, much of which had been in the original application. After sending this material, we received no response for six months, until we asked our Congressman to look into it. He was told our file had been closed because information was incomplete, and that we would need to file again, with an additional application fee, of course. It seems the application form had changed in the midst of our application process, and we had used the old form. This kind of red tape can gum up the works for community organizations such as ours. We ended up reorganizing into the Good Shepherd Alliance, combining our efforts with those of other groups that already enjoyed nonprofit status. Working with the County, But Staying Independent Our organization also evolved in many ways, one of which was substantial and instructive. The county had many constraints and regulations that characterized their involvement in providing services. The county workers involved in our group were not there just as individuals concerned with the problems of people who were homeless, which they were; they were also representatives of their county agency, and, as such, opposed any effort which contradicted their agency directives. The first conflict occurred when we wanted to service people regardless of county residency status. Their needs were irrespective of any border, the non-county Board members argued. The county agency Board members argued that their efforts and services were based on county residence. Other conflicts arose over using homeless residents as shelter coordinators, which was not in adherence with county policy, and disputes were ongoing about the county agency directives that services be time-limited, and that refusal to accept mental health services or other social worker recommendations would be grounds for cutting off services. This became untenable when the county mandated that we hire a full-time director from monies which had been donated and earmarked for the purchase of a permanent shelter. Because of the understandings which had developed throughout the process of working together, the incompatibility of county constraints with our organization's broader mission was apparent, and so there was an amicable reconstitution of our Board to allow admission to those involved as county agency representatives to meetings as observers only. We continued to work together, although in a much more formal way. Homeless people in need of and desiring county services would be screened by social services and those who met program requirements would be given services and the shelter would receive partial reimbursement for providing housing. In return, the Housing Alliance provided transportation to social services and other services, and provided follow-through so that social workers did not have to do shelter visits and monitor client activities. It is important to note that this arrangement allowed us to provide requested services, rather than control clients, by forcing unwanted services on them. The latter approach tends to erode agency, independence and dignity and thus promote dependence, low self-esteem and negate personal responsibility and motivation. This approach would also transform the Alliance from a provider of services to an agent of social control, which was not the intent of the organization or the community. As greater opportunities for service were offered to the community, support increased for the shelter programs and greater acceptance of people who became homeless as members of the community became evident. An important attitude we tried to promote was that homeless people are members of the community, our neighbors, and it is more important to do things with, and in consultation and cooperation with, homeless people, than it is to do things for them. This approach accomplished more that just providing shelter, food and other needed services and items. The relationship was fueled by its reciprocal nature. Taxpayers struggling with what was perceived to be an already untenable tax burden appreciated and sustained alternative ways to address the problem of homelessness and help homeless people. It has recently been estimated that the Alliance saved the county between $1 and $1.4 million dollars each year that it has operated. Boy Scouts appreciated readily available means for fulfilling their community service requirements for advancement. A high school student volunteering her time for childcare for families in a shelter, earned a college scholarship on the basis of community service, a kind of scholarship that is more prevalent than those based on academic or sports achievement at our local high schools. Businesses gained a great deal of goodwill, PR and advertising from their support, and encouraged community involvement and attachment among their employees. The process was never framed as one of conflict, partisanship, or confrontation, but rather of cooperation, mutual engagement, and facilitation. As a result, everyone who came to the table ultimately gained what they were after, an effective way to address the problem of homelessness. After all, no community wants the problem of homelessness in their backyard, which is where it stays unless they deal with it. May 1995 More Information Jeanne Calabro
104 Norwood Place
Sterling, VA 20164-8503 The Good Shepherd Alliance, Inc.
A Nonprofit Organization
P.O. Box 353
Sterling, Virginia 20167 Back to Religion Index
Back to Community Index |
