Download Shared Values, Shared Purpose (PDF)

Shared Values, Shared Purpose

A community conversation framework for Chico Campout for Compassion 2026
Saturday, November 14, 2026
One Night. Many Locations. One Community.

We do not have to agree on every policy to begin with shared humanity.

Why We’re Here … A Conversation, Not an Argument

Our approach to homelessness may appear left-leaning … but this isn’t about left or right. The best available research, studies, science, and real-world results help us understand what works and what doesn’t. Facts are facts, and results are results.

People with different perspectives are welcome to bring countering research and challenge the resources we recommend. Our project does not recommend “treatment first” materials, but disagreement does not exclude anyone from the conversation.

We are not here to tell people what to think or how things should be done … we are here to start conversations. Dialogue … nothing more. Read the full statement or download it as a PDF.

This document proposes a common starting point for participating groups. Its foundation is Iain De Jong’s OrgCode video, The Missing Piece in Ending Homelessness: Shared Values (October 30, 2025), alongside the existing purpose and educational-resource policy of Chico Campout for Compassion. It is an independent local adaptation, not an OrgCode publication or endorsement.

The central question is simple: Before we argue about strategies, what values do we share … and how do those values show up in how we treat people?

Our invitation: All community organizations, churches, youth groups, families, and individuals are invited. Every group may use its own appropriate activities. Our resources are recommended, not required.

1. The purpose of our night

Campout for Compassion is a citywide awareness event, not a fundraising campaign and not a test of political agreement. On one shared night, independently organized groups gather at their own safe and approved locations to listen, learn, discuss, and reflect on the experiences of neighbors who are living without stable housing.

A food or basic-needs drive is optional, with contributions going directly to existing local programs. Participating in a discussion, classroom activity, service project, or supervised overnight event all count. One night outside does not recreate homelessness; that limitation should be acknowledged honestly.

Our measure of success: More human conversations, fewer assumptions, stronger community connections, and a clearer understanding of which responses move people toward safe, stable housing.

2. Shared values are not identical political positions

De Jong argues that coordination on paper can break down when organizations do not examine the values beneath their choices. One group may prioritize access and flexibility, another strict program rules; one may invite lived-experience testimony without letting that input affect decisions. The result can be contradictory messages and fragmented help.

For this community event, the first agreement is more basic: everyone deserves dignity, safety, an opportunity to be heard, and an honest conversation. Participants can disagree about specific policies without dehumanizing neighbors or one another.

Awareness doesn’t take sides … all voices and perspectives are encouraged. That welcome does not mean that Campout has no position about the materials it recommends. Respectful participation is open; editorial selection of resources remains with the project.

3. Twelve values to begin the conversation

The following is a concise, locally adapted summary of De Jong’s twelve proposed values, kept in the order of his video. He presents them as conversation starters, not commandments. They can be discussed without asking every host to endorse all twelve.

Housing is a human right. A safe, stable home should not depend on someone first proving readiness or meeting preconditions. Discuss: What would it mean for a neighbor to have a genuinely workable path to housing?
Lived experience means co-design, not tokenism. People who have experienced homelessness should shape decisions and evaluation, not simply be invited to tell their story. Discuss: Whose input changes the plans we make?
Voluntary engagement and autonomy matter. Services should meet people where they are and respect individual choice. Discuss: How can we offer help without taking away dignity or agency?
Support, not surveillance. Assistance should not mean control of a person’s every move. Discuss: When do program rules support stability, and when do they become barriers?
Cultural safety and equity matter. Different communities face unequal risks and barriers; inclusion needs more than a generic invitation. Discuss: Who might feel excluded from our gathering or our services?
Trauma-informed care is foundational. Safety, trust, and avoiding re-traumatization belong in the design of help. Discuss: How do we make listening and participation safe?
Progressive engagement. Begin with the lightest support that works and increase assistance according to need and interest. Discuss: What does it look like to offer help without demanding a test of worthiness?
Build on strengths. Recognize capabilities, relationships, resilience, and potential rather than reducing someone to problems. Discuss: What strengths are commonly overlooked?
Provide non-judgmental service. Curiosity and compassion open doors that blame can close. Discuss: How can we ask questions without assuming a person’s story?
Use data for people, not against them. Information should improve outcomes and inform decisions, not become a means of gatekeeping. Discuss: Which numbers actually show whether someone became more stable?
Recovery is not linear. Setbacks, missed appointments, and relapses need not end a person’s opportunity for support. Discuss: How should a community respond when progress is uneven?
Keep moving toward housing. Services and policies should be assessed by whether they contribute to housing outcomes. Discuss: Are we making homelessness less visible, or helping people become housed?

4. Participation is open; resources are recommended

The Campout educational collection reflects what the project has called a “shelter first” or lowest-barrier approach. Here, that means welcoming people into safe shelter and assistance with as few unnecessary conditions as possible, while continuing to seek lasting housing outcomes. Shelter and permanent housing are not the same thing; this event should not confuse an immediate safe option with a permanent home.

Recommended, not required. Hosts are welcome to use our videos, discussions, handouts, or activities … or to develop an appropriate program of their own.
No participation test. Groups do not need to declare agreement with the twelve values or any single homelessness policy.
All voices are encouraged. Participants may raise concerns about neighborhood safety, public spending, shelter operations, housing supply, and treatment services. Respect for people is expected even amid disagreement.
Our resource boundary. “Treatment first” materials will not be provided or recommended by the project. This is a decision about the project’s own materials, not a prohibition on respectful discussion of treatment.
Treatment and support are not taboo subjects. Participants may discuss behavioral health and recovery while distinguishing those needs from making treatment a prerequisite for safety or shelter.

Hosts retain responsibility for a safe, supervised, age-appropriate program at an approved location. This document is an invitation to conversation, not a licensing or event-permit substitute.

5. Lived experience should have real influence

The video stresses the difference between giving someone a few minutes at a microphone and inviting them to help shape what a system does. That same principle applies to a local awareness event.

Invite people with current or past lived experience to help decide which stories and questions belong in the program.
Let speakers decide what they are comfortable sharing. Do not require painful personal details or public disclosure of sensitive information.
Offer an honorarium or other agreed compensation where possible; ask permission before recording or publishing someone’s story.
Afterward, ask those participants what the event got right, what it missed, and what should change next time.

Listening is the starting point. Letting that listening affect the next decision is the goal.

6. A practical shared-values discussion

A host can use this simple 45–55 minute format. It works without an overnight campout, and the video is a recommended core conversation starter for adult groups. A short adult-previewed excerpt may be more appropriate for younger participants.

Time	Part	Suggested focus
5 min	Welcome	What brings us together? Establish respectful ground rules.
10 min	Watch / listen	Play the OrgCode video or a carefully selected excerpt.
15 min	Shared values	Ask what each person agrees with, questions, or would change.
15 min	Local realities	Discuss safety, available shelter, barriers, and paths to housing in Chico without assuming one story fits everyone.
5–10 min	Reflection	Name one thing learned, one question that remains, and one action that would show greater respect.

For younger audiences: Preserve the age-appropriate activities already in the host package; no video should be automatic or required. Facilitators should screen videos before showing them, especially to minors.

7. Questions that can bring people together

What do we all want to be different about Chico one year from now?
What does a safe neighborhood mean to a housed neighbor … and to someone sleeping outdoors?
Which needs do we agree are urgent, even if we disagree about the methods?
When does a shelter rule help someone, and when might it prevent access?
What would change if people with lived experience helped design the options?
What outcomes would tell us that fewer people are actually homeless, rather than simply less visible?
What is one action we could take without asking anyone here to change their political identity?

8. What we hope participants take away

We are not asking Chico to agree on every cause, every service model, or every city policy. We are asking neighbors to see one another as people and to examine what our shared values require of our actions.

One night does not end homelessness. It can, however, help us listen differently, speak differently, and work toward choices that result in more people safely housed.

The core idea from De Jong is not that we need better slogans. It is that values become meaningful only when they shape decisions. Campout for Compassion is an opportunity to begin that conversation … together.

Source and attribution: Iain De Jong / OrgCode Consulting, The Missing Piece in Ending Homelessness: Shared Values, published October 30, 2025. The principles above paraphrase the user-supplied transcript and adapt them into a Chico discussion framework. This independent document is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by OrgCode.

Chico Campout for Compassion 2026: sfranzyshen.org/campout/ … scotty@sfranzyshen.org