Kerry Jang looks for a more comprehensive solution to solving Vancouver's homelessness and drug addiction problems.

Dr. Kerry Jang  has written a op-ed piece for the Vancouver Sun about the "not so simple"solutions for solving homelessness in Vancouver. 

Jang is an amazing man.  He is a University of British Columbia professor of Psychiatry who has applied his research on mental illness to problems in his community of Collingwood in Vancouver.  And... he wants to be a Vancouver city councilor for Vision Vancouver.

In 2006, he was named academic of the year by receiving the 2006 CUFA/BC Distinguished Academics Awards.

In 2007, he was awarded the BC Community Achievement Award as "volunteer for harm reduction initiatives and as former President and Board member of the Collingwood Neighbourhood House. Dr. Jang has shared his expertise as a professor and psychologist by helping his community effectively address issues of homelessness, addictions and mental health." 

I really appreciate his work in the mental health field.  Back in 2001, I did a co-op work study with the Canadian Mental Health Assocation, BC Division.  I got to understand a lot more about the issues, as I worked on community projects.  Most importantly, I worked on a lobby campaign to highlight mental health issues for that fall's provincial election.  Kerry has served as both volunteer and   board member for the Canadian Mental Health Association, but more recently he serves on the newly created Mental Health Commission of Canada.

I first met Kerry a few years ago at a fundraiser for Jenny Kwan.  In the years since, we have gotten to know each other, trade advice, and greet each other warmly.  When it was my turn this year to go to Victoria and receive my BC Community Achievement Award, I asked about the event, and Kerry gave me fashion advice, and suggested that I wear my kilt.  A few weeks ago, Kerry asked me for an endorsement for his website.

Earlier this month, both Jang and Andrea Reimer created a news event by soliciting skytrain riders to apply for the vacant Translink board positions.  It was a very good and effective political publicity stunt, while addressing the problems of Translink's financial and undemocratic issues.  I heard Kerry speaking on CBC radio, and Frances Bula wrote it up on her blog.

Does 'housing first' model make sense?

There were cheers of delight and moans of dismay at the announcement that people living in the tent city at Oppenheimer Park will be offered housing in single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels.

The cheers came from the proponents of the "housing first" model that is predicated on the assumption people need a roof over their heads before they can begin to address their mental illness and/or drug addiction problems. The moans came from those who feel that this announcement has done little but provide a safe haven for drug use and other illegal activities.

Who is right? Should we be smiling or hanging our heads in shame?

View Larger Image

Protesters in this summer's tent city in Oppenheimer Park won housing in SRO hotels for their efforts, but that is only part of the solution to the problems of mental illness, addiction and homelessness.

Mark van Manen, Vancouver Sun files

The great appeal of the housing first model is that it is rooted in one of our most cherished ideas -- the role of a stable home. A warm, dry and clean home provides the safe base from which to start solving life's problems, no matter how big or small they may be.

By providing a home to those in need first, regardless of their personal problems, is one way to replicate this fundamental stable environment that gives the person a leg up so they can move on to appropriate treatment.

The model is also based in psychological theory and research, reflecting the "hierarchy of needs" outlined by the psychologist Abraham Maslow. At the lowest level of his hierarchy are physiological and safety needs, such as food, warmth and security. It is not possible to move to higher levels of the hierarchy -- which encompass love, belonging, esteem and self-actualization, having a moral sense, being creative, acceptance of facts -- until the each of the lower levels have been met.

However, we all know that even in the best homes, the best environments, and under the best conditions, there remain drug addiction, mental illness, physical and sexual abuse and behavioural problems that leads to life on the street.

Such real world observations have led many in the general public and public health alike to adopt a "housing last" model, which is predicated on the idea that the best course of action is to first stabilize a person by addressing the mental illness and/or drug addiction so that they could go into housing.

It was reasoned that unless the underlying problems were addressed first, the housing provided could degenerate into the filthy SROs that epitomize the Downtown Eastside today.

Indeed, some would say that under the housing first model what has been provided are new, comfortable crack houses for addicts to shoot up, deal drugs and engage in prostitution or all manner of illegal activity. Moreover, if the person who was provided housing first decided not to address their problems, the person could be evicted back onto the streets and the vicious cycle continues.

Which model is correct? Quite frankly, both, but both can lead to disaster unless we remember the mistake we made in the 1990s with the closure of Riverview Psychiatric Hospital.

The decision to close Riverview was also based on the common-sense idea that psychiatric patients will do better living in communities as opposed to being locked up in a hospital. In communities, patients can interact with "normal" people which would help their reintegration back into society.

Read more of the article at

Does 'housing first' model make sense?

www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=97ccbd9d-f1d1-4111-8a8d-a1f8db22c207