It started when people experiencing homelessness heard that the city was considering a new proposal that would no longer allow them to sleep at night in public parks. There was already a law forbidding daytime sleeping in parks, and the goal of the proposal was aimed at making the parks more appealing to the city residents, many of whom cited that the reason they did not visit city parks was because they didn’t feel safe or weren’t comfortable with the number of people experiencing homelessness who occupied those spaces.

The pending city proposal left people experiencing homelessness feeling they had nowhere to go. The city, like dozens of other communities across the United States, lacked a reliable supply of affordable housing. For those who live just above or below the poverty line, finding a home they could afford to rent or buy was nearly impossible, and there were years-long waiting lists to get into subsidized housing because there wasn’t enough of that kind of housing available.

The city also lacked adequate shelter facilities for those experiencing homelessness. There was only one shelter, which was run by a religious organization and was structured so that men slept in one part of the building and women and children in another. There were no facilities where families could stay together. In addition, the shelter had a zero-tolerance policy on drug and alcohol use, it would not allow same-sex couples, and “guests” were required to attend daily religious services in order to stay at the shelter. There was also a three-month limit for shelter stays.

For many of the city residents, the perception they had of people experiencing homelessness was that they were drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill, or “unemployed by choice.” Unfortunately, this proposal made people experiencing homelessness believe that the city leaders viewed them this way, too.

For one couple, a tent replaced a house they rented for 15 years that had recently been flooded during heavy rains and condemned. The wife, who had multiple sclerosis, was in a wheelchair, and her husband worked a third-shift position at a manufacturing company so he could care for her during the day. They could not find housing in the city they could afford and that was wheelchair accessible. The shelter was not an option for them; the wife needed her husband’s care. So the couple opted instead to live in a tent they bought at a thrift store, setting it up in various city parks, packing up and moving every few days to a new site when the police would inform them they were violating the law.

They found they weren’t the only ones; the city was full of these nomadic campers. One woman began experiencing homelessness after treatment for cancer cost her her job and her savings. There was a mother of three whose landlord raised the rent on their apartment to a level that she could not afford.

She had spent the last three months living at the shelter while looking for a new place to live but not succeeding before the family’s time there ran out.

Many of the people experiencing homelessness began talking to one another and soon organized a group, choosing three people to serve as their leaders and spokespersons. These leaders requested a meeting with city officials to explain how the proposal would hurt those experiencing homelessness further. Their appeal was unsuccessful; the city manager and mayor told the group the change was needed because it would benefit the majority of city residents (who, incidentally, paid property taxes), rather than a small minority. They suggested that people experiencing homelessness “needed to follow a few simple rules” to be able to stay at the shelter, and those who couldn’t adhere to those rules were making that choice of their own volition.

The city’s response only confirmed what the community feared: that the complexities of their situations were not understood or valued. That evening, an encampment of about 30 people popped up in the park in the heart of the city’s downtown and directly across from city hall. The next day the camp doubled in size. The group’s leaders explained to the media that they were camping in the park out of protest of the new proposal, the lack of shelter options in the city, and the general disregard by city leaders for people experiencing homelessness. The media interviewed several members of the camp, who related how they had became people experiencing homelessness. The group said it would not leave the park until the proposal was scrapped and the city developed a plan to help those experiencing homelessness find suitable, affordable housing................

Questions

1. Who is the out-group in this case? Is there more than one out-group?

2. The chapter discusses several reasons why out-groups form. What is the best explanation for how people experiencing homelessness became an out-group?

3. What role did unconscious bias, prejudice, or stereotypes play in people experiencing homelessness becoming an out-group?

4. The chapter strongly suggests that the leader should try to bring the out-group into the group. In what way did the mayor and city commissioners try to do this? Did they try hard enough? Defend your answer.

5. Which of the strategies for how a leader should respond to an out-group were used in this situation? Which were not? Do you think this affected the outcome?