Service Learning at Chrysalis: Non-Profit Employment Agency for the Homeless

Chrysalis was established in 1984 by John Dillon who was deeply moved when he saw the living conditions of the homeless in Skid Row, Los Angeles. He wanted to improve their situation by giving them necessities such as food and clothing. As Chrysalis evolved, it turned its focus to job readiness. Chrysalis clients follow a two-week program that teaches them anger management, empowerment, and computer skills. An employment specialist types up a résumé for them and goes over questions that may be asked during a job interview. Chrysalis aims to better prepare the people who are seeking jobs.

The Santa Monica branch was opened in partnership with the City of Santa Monica in 1994. Chrysalis has been recognized by The Office of Drug Enforcement of the White House and participated in a conference about "Innovative Solutions to Hunger and Poverty" for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Funds come from corporations such as Bank of America, City National Bank, Dreamworks, Fox Group, Hilton, Imagine Entertainment, John Paul Mitchell Systems, MGM, TransAmerica Occidental Life Insurance, Universal Studios, Verizon, and The Walt Disney Company. There are over 50 corporate sponsors.

As a whole, this experience has strengthened me. One of my greatest fears before was to fail. I used to think that if I got an "F", that would lead to more "F's", which would lead to my dropping out of school, which would land me on the streets. In my mind, a small failure brought me a step closer to becoming an "untouchable", one of a big mass of losers who all did drugs and were falling apart. Clients who come to Chrysalis have hit rock bottom, yet none exhibit "loser" qualities that I envisioned. A lot of them are motivated and bright. Instead of bringing them down, their dire situation catalyzes them. Knowing these people has enabled me to see that my fears were unjustified. It has taught me that I can always do something in every situation, no matter how low I go. Knowing this has taken a huge burden off my back.

The most important thing that I've contributed to Chrysalis is my good attitude. I can tell that some of the clients aren't feeling too great about themselves. One woman who just got a job was praying aloud that she wouldn't mess things up for herself this time around. I know what it's like to be judged negatively just based on my appearance, so I treat everyone with respect and answer all the questions that they ask, no matter how trivial. Even when class is over, I stay a bit to ask how their job search is going. I feel that they're stressed over the whole job searching process, so I try to make class as stress-free as possible. I like to think that they leave my class thinking, "Hey, she's really cool! This world isn't half as bad as I had thought." Since I'm a new instructor and I do make computer mistakes, the students see that I'm also human (not a computer whiz), so if I can master Microsoft Word, they can too! I think they relate better to me since they know that I'm a student as well.

A compliment that I've received is that I'm a good teacher. A couple of students have come back to retake the class just to get used to the computer. When I see familiar faces, I feel more comfortable talking in front of the class. I'm more inclined to be humorous (although one guy told me that I made a pretty bad pun last Thursday.) Nancy told me that she likes the way I tutor because I don't have a "I know more than you" attitude. I wanted to help her in every way I could in her job search. I told her about the Colonial Agency, which specializes in domestic care. I gave her my number in case she needed a ride to an interview. The cool thing is that she didn't latch onto me like I was her lifeline. She actually already knew about Colonial Agency, and she had bus tokens, so she didn't take up my offer. This reinforces my impression that Chrysalis clients are far from welfare queens.

The hardest aspect of working at Chrysalis is to keep the lesson on track. A lot of students will ask a question followed by a really long anecdote. One time, a student muttered, "That's how computers are. They're either Communist or Republican -- never one that helps." I sometimes feel as if I'm waiting for them to pause for air, and then I jump in and direct everyone's attention back to computers.

Chrysalis addresses the high unemployment rates among the poor. Although many of them are capable, they are prevented from actualizing because of a stigma. One man returned to Chrysalis because the first employer discovered that he had a tattoo on his neck. The negative psychological impact can be seen in the timidity of our clients. "Do you want me to leave? I could come back" is a frequent chorus I hear when students discover that a lot of seats have been filled. It's as if they expect to be rejected. Their self-esteem is low because they don't have a job. Marla was laughing with her friend about how embarrassing her record is. Most employers shut their doors quickly as soon as they see the "yes" box checked on convictions. Ex-convicts are stigmatized, which allows for even fewer opportunities than if they were merely ill-educated. The extent of this problem is widespread, as indicated by the need of three other facilities to be opened in the greater Los Angeles area. Each year, over 2,000 people are helped by Chrysalis in finding jobs (http://www.changelives.org/facts.html).

Chrysalis follows a functionalist perspective in the way that its agenda is to assimilate the deviations by providing them with appropriate clothing and preparatory classes that increase their employability. The agency approaches the issue of unemployment on a personal level. Clients are counseled and trained. Volunteers like me familiarize them with the computer and drill them through mock interviews. There is a schedule of programs: Tuesdays are computer classes, Wednesday classes involve anger management, Thursday evenings are about empowering women. The staff, on the other hand, ascribe to the system-blame approach. Most of the staff is made up of people who have personally dealt with poverty and feel that more is working against minorities and the poor than just personal deficiencies. "It's a lot more than all the resources Chrysalis offers. I needed someone to believe in me. It's getting your dignity back." said one of the clients. I feel that the success of Chrysalis can be attributed to the attitude of the staff. When a client walks in, he doesn't feel ostracized or patronized. He is surrounded by people who understand his background without judging. Each client is different at Chrysalis. Some are more vocal about injustices of the system, as evidenced by Julie, who commented that, "It's a good system and a bad system. You have to have money. One day, I was dining out with girlfriends; a couple of weeks after that, I lost my job, and my place, and I was going hungry." Other clients don't talk about being discriminated against by the system. They continue their job search -- in the meantime, taking computer classes and community college classes in the hopes of bettering themselves. They have have had more than their fair share of hardships. They become extremely aware that life isn't fair, but they've also become jaded by such experiences. One man commented, "Nobody clapped for me when I got my job, but it's all good."

Because Chrysalis initiates change from the poor, their approach pinpoints poverty at the person-level rather than structural. Its evolution allowed for more resources such as clothing and computers for Chrysalis clients to use, but there was never any talk of why minority groups are disproportionately represented in the homeless and jobless population. Chrysalis' concern begins with the poor population and ends there too, though slightly less so after they find a job. When you look at the support that Chrysalis gets from corporations, you realize that to blame the capitalistic society for inequality would shame their biggest supporters, and that might be reason enough to retract their generous support. Considering the merits bestowed upon them for upstanding work, Chrysalis has a favored position amongst the State. This is a mutually-rewarding relationship in the name of goodwill for mankind. Corporations look good for donating to a cause, and Chrysalis, a poster-child for community service, trickles down support to appreciative minorities.

The clients who come to Chrysalis have been employed in the past, and a lot of their jobs were with small businesses. My job is to type up their resumes, which includes organizing their references. While searching for those business names in the yellow pages, I discovered that a lot of them have folded. This trend can be seen even in my neighborhood. The owner of a local eatery talked to me about how Starbuck's offered him a check to take over his popular Gino's Cappuchinos in Seattle. Our future is leaning toward more Starbuck's and fewer family-owned companies. When it comes to corporations, the money barely trickles down, as exemplified by the difference in salary of the typical CEO versus a nonsupervisory worker (Eitzen 37). The CEO generally earns 458 times what the worker does. I can barely comprehend my own salary magnified by that rate. In order for small businesses to stay afloat, they need to be stingy on costs to maximize their profit. This includes keeping wages low. A constant unemployment rate of 10 to 15% makes employees less likely to complain about low wages since they're grateful to even have a job.

My experiences confirm that "the state is not a neutral agent but is biased in favor of those with wealth." (Eitzen)Chapter 2 of Social Problems talks about how it takes money to be a player in the legislative game. With corporations being the best bet on a winning candidate, it is hard to pass any bills that don't favor the already rich and successful. Negotiations such as those stamped out by the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement only confirm our fears that big business' pursuit of profit is getting out of hand. It is about who has a voice, and the corporations have an omnipresent one. My friend Patra, who is originally from England is thinking of moving back because she feels vulnerable due to the healthcare system here in the States. She told me that the welfare in Great Britain covers a small house for those in need. Even though the United States boasts equal opportunity, social security, and a minimum wage, it is becoming clear to me that each step was grudgingly given by the state due to overwhelming concern and protest.

The stresses of poverty (shabby living conditions, high crime rate) are pervasive and seemingly impossible to overcome. A lot of rap songs repeat the phrase, "While the rich get richer, the poor gets poorer." It is this bias in the structure of our monopolistic oligarchy of a capitalist society that jades ordinary citizens who work hard just to make ends meet while those at the top watch their 401K's grow as they file their nails. I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to handle these problems with grace. Escaping through alcohol, even reveling in angry music would be a necessity in order to stay sane.

Cultural inferiority as an explanation for poverty is not a viable because I see the same values and life-styles in different classes. I attended a Blue Ribbon high school where many students come from wealthy families. I do not see evidence of my peers exemplifying high morals or culture. The dean of students had to give the longest lecture on integrity after many incidents of theft. A group of students regularly smoked and snorted cocaine at a local park. One notable difference, though, is how almost all students who have wealthy families see college as the next logical step after high school. Those whose families may not be able to afford college tuition don't make college plans. Instead, they jump right into the work force to alleviate whatever financial burden they may already have.

The first step toward solving social problems would be to recognize that those who are disadvantaged could easily be you or me. I think society has a tendency to be cold toward many problems because they see a strong line between themselves and the "others". For example, they may see a black woman with three kids barely making ends meet in a poor neighborhood, and they don't connect because they could never imagine not having a high school diploma, much less living day in and day out in the slums

The notion that poor people refuse to work is a ridiculous one. Both the clients at Chrysalis and poor people whom I have known are eager to work. People who beg in the streets are seen as bums, but I have an anecdote that says otherwise. At the call center where I worked in 2004, we relayed mystifying messages subscriber to the effect of "Good morning! Seven on Eighth." Or "A slow day, fifteen on Main." I finally asked my manager, who told me that the callers were bums tallying up their street earnings and reporting to their organizer. What I see are poor people who are turning to unconventional methods to earn money, a lot of times showing diligence and ingenuity. The people who come to Chrysalis make calls, edit their resumes, research companies, and polish their skills in answering questions that may be asked during an interview. Granted, it would be difficult to find someone who didn't want to work, as Chrysalis is an employment agency.

Structural discrimination theory explains how difficult it is to cross over from the have-nots to the haves. I see this as the more accurate explanation of class inequality. With discrimination working against poor people who, chances are, have little or no educationon, it is difficult to "think outside the box" when the walls of discrimination and exploitation are so sound. When I help clients look for a job, I notice that many of the postings seek applicants who have degrees or a vehicle. This automatically closes the doors on those who really need to work. If Chrysalis didn't provide resources such as computers, printers, and bus tokens, the process of finding a job would be darn near impossible. I saw one vagrant near a freeway overpass who had a slew of signs, each appealing for money with various approaches. One appealed to compassion: "Down on luck. Please help." One was candid: "I need a beer. Need $$" Another was religious: "God bless. Anything helps." It showed me that people really aren't that different. The organized beggars reminded me of some sort of a unionized messenger service. The sign-carrying guy was doing the same job that many gophers in studios do. If doors were opened to these people, they would be employing these very qualities that they are demonstrating now in obtaining money.

A second theory of why the poor are poor doesn't sit well with me at all. Cultural deficiency theory posits lack of morals or motivation. At Chrysalis, so many students help each other operate the computers that it gives me faith in humankind. I've never seen more punctual or more polite individuals, and the crazy thing is that they're not even getting paid for it. They treat the classes as if it were a job already. Many students ask questions beyond what is covered in the day's lesson. It reflects their eagerness to learn and utilize their new skills. How easily a pupil mastered Microsoft Word did not correlate to his/her race. It did, on the other hand, correlate to their past experience with computers.

One explanation for inequality proposed by sociologists is bias theory. It focuses on prejudice and discrimination in the workplace. My experiences have all been personal ones of interaction with individual people. So both my good and negative experiences are viewed in terms of people affecting my world. But there's a missing link when it comes to attributing inequality to racists. Saying that White supremacists hold the key to world peace and equality is a silly one because minorities deal with a whole slew of problems that would not be vanquished if all the biased people in the world disappeared. Prejudice compounds the problem, and encountering a racist would certainly ruin my day, but the plight of minorities rests upon institutions that can bring about the winds of change. In Soul of a Citizen, Loeb speaks about how easily one is discouraged when aiming for goals that require political breakthroughs. It is much easier to focus on more tangible problems that are usually personal and family-related. However, it is this stratified way of activity that prevents a community from muscling their concerns through the chokehold that corporations have on public policy. Like John [Sophia's husband] says, "The poor don't have a voice. In meetings, it's who's represented who get a shot at making change." That is the basic problem of addressing inequality. It feels like top wealthiest 10% of the population have 90% of the say in matters that affect the nation as a whole, and it's totally unfair, but the disadvantaged are broken into units whose main focus is to survive, nevermind championing equal rights.

Structural discrimination theory looks at the impact of media, which most folks are almost numb to. A lot of people think that the government is some faraway entity that deals with a bunch of papers, but this theory spotlights the government and its role in favoring the rich (mostly White) masses. Many of the clients at Chrysalis are homeless and have had substance abuse problems. Their behavior, to me, reflects their disappointment in society and shows that they have withdrawn as a result.

Because the notion of the family is so skewed, it is easy to use this area as a scapegoat for major problems. First, the traditional idea of mom at home and dad as breadwinner applies to less than 10% of the population. This mythical norm is almost impossible to achieve, considering that an average of $20,000 is spent yearly to raise a teenager. People whose families consist of step-children or parents who have been wed more than once, or single-parent families may feel as if they are doing things the wrong way because the modern family myth is spread by sitcoms, movies, preachers (who in all likelihood are guilty of promiscuity themselves) and advertisements. Because people are apathetic these days toward politics, it is too easy for legislators to mitigate the role that the economy plays in the environment that a child is raised in. Instead, they call for individuals to uphold better family values, which in essence claims that societal problems such as class inequality and crime could all be absolved at the family level. No, it couldn't be the lack of government funding for better education, it's mom and dad's fault for not supervising their children. The state would rather point the blame on parents who didn't read the bible enough than look at issues like class discrimination and environmental racism. With all of the motivational talk surrounding the family in national campaigns, you would assume that the family has many choices. However, that is not the case because many families are under duress as it is, trying to support themselves.

Among the working class, a new stress has been put upon them by the elimination of their jobs due to technology and outsourcing of major companies to countries like India and China, where labor is cheap. As a result, blue collar workers find themselves jobless or earning less than before. A common solution is to find another job to supplicate the earnings of the first. Yet parents are made to feel guilty by talk shows and political campaigners.

Many women who are the female head of the household work long hours for low wages. My first brush with this trend was when an African American girl in my high school approached me to borrow some money because she needed to get an abortion. We became close, and she confided in me that she was angry that her dad was lecturing her about responsibilities when he wasn't even a part of her life growing up. She also told me that she was stressed out by her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, also African-American, who was his baby's mama. Her boyfriend was toying with the idea of actually having the kid instead of her getting an abortion, but she didn't think it was a good idea because both of them were making $7 an hour at a clothing store. After graduation, I talked with her sporadically. I discovered that during her last year of college, she became pregnant again and decided to have the kid. She now lives in Long Beach working part time doing administrative work at a local college. Though she and the kid's father are friends, she is the one who raises the child.

Another one of my close friends in high school complaining that she never gets to see her best friend anymore now that she has a kid: "I don't know how Vita does it. Her man is in jail, and she has to work full time at Rite-Aid." When I came to Los Angeles, I befriended two women (also ethnic minorities) who are single mothers and students. One told me that she hasn't bought any new clothes for herself in years, and that she has just enough money for the necessities. Dave, a Santa Monica High School graduate, has to submit papers about where he works to prove that his family (single parent family - female head of household) still qualifies for Section 8. He has never met his dad. I meet more guys than I do women; but I have yet to meet a destitute single father. Firsthand, I can see that having a child at a young age puts women at a disadvantage. "Research also suggests that the lack of good child care often confines women to part-time or home-based work. The result is that inadequate child care traps many women in low-paying, dead-end work." (Eitzen)

The chances are higher for young couples to break up, as opposed to people in relationships who are over 24 years of age. More often than not, it is the female who has to support the child after the break-up. This puts pressure on her to find a job as soon as possible, which puts schooling on hold. People who have a bachelor's degree make considerably more than someone without. Society sees women as nurturers, so a mother who abandoning her child is atrocious, whereas deadbeat father get off easy. In order to increase opportunities for America's youth, our society needs to re-evaluate gender roles to lessen the burden upon single-mothers who bear the brunt of child-raising.

The ultimate goal of Chrysalis is for poor conditions to improve, leading to social equity. So many sponsors allows it to contribute to their client's well-being, but only to a degree where, let's say, there are less visible indicators of inequality and poverty. What Chrysalis really does is polish the surface of societal problems. Corporations are patting themselves for a job well done, as their efforts answer outcries of injustice since they give the appearance of helping the community. Chrysalis employees see the clients as family and genuinely want to improve the living situation of the poor. However, there will always be more poor people replacing those they've just helped unless they plug it at the top. That is why they have hired Sophia, who works with coalitions to petition for legislation that would lead to a higher rate of employment in Los Angeles. She and her husband were appalled that the proposed 10-year improvement plan for the homeless of Los Angeles did not mention one word about better opportunities for employment. I think that this is a big step forward for Chrysalis. If they hire two more Sophia's, maybe the gears will start cranking

Instead of cash grants, wouldn't it be cool if those "giving" corporations opened up their doors directly to Chrysalis clients? They could even revise our training programs to ensure that our clients have exactly the skills needed to work for their company. Chrysalis' motto is "a hand up, not a hand out," but the jobs that many of the clients find are low-paying. In order for these people to rise, they need a higher education, which doesn't even guarantee a job. The people who come to Chrysalis are close to having nothing. It's commendable when you see them move beyond that to something more stable, but we all know that they will probably never see the day where they'll own their own home. Is it too much to ask for free college that prepares students for higher paying jobs? What if K-mart branded a fashion institute, fully sponsored and accredited? Imagine Microsoft doing Devry, only free! Food for a thought...

Kornblum, William. Social problems. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall, 2001.Loeb, Paul Rogat. Soul of a Citizen Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. Boston: St. Martin's Griffin, 1999.