It is only fitting that I resume voicing my say-so with a few words on a topic with which I left off. Last week the New York Times has proclaimed the Housing First project a success. Despite my disbelief that simply providing a new context to otherwise “broken people” will do anything to relieve homelessness the article New Campaign Shows Progress for Homeless marks the following improvements:
In Philadelphia, street dwellers have declined 60 percent over five years. In San Francisco, the number of the chronic homeless is down 28 percent in two years, in Dallas 26 percent and in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., 15 percent.
Here is how the program works:
In a first step, confirmed street dwellers are coaxed into rooms of their own, a more attractive proposition to many than the drug treatment programs or transitional group homes they had been offered in the past. Some skittish people take along their shopping carts.
Once drawn into so-called supportive housing, the participants are monitored by social workers and offered psychiatric and other services that might stabilize their lives. But breaking addictions or seeking other needed treatment is not a prerequisite for entry.
It is noteworthy :
Some “tough-love” groups have opposed housing first, saying that without more discipline, addicts will never succeed. But in experiments around the country, 80 percent or more of those housed participants remained in their quarters after a year.
Workers at the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, which runs Mr. Sena’s building, said they knew that some tenants were using drugs or alcohol.”It’s better that they pass out here than in the streets,” said John Parvensky, director of the coalition.
The above brings into light that the issue is composed of two problems the success of which should not be cross credited:
1) Eliminating the general and often abstract social problem of homelessness.
2) Helping the homeless persons to a life of independence and normalcy within their capacity.
Presently, since Housing First is a widely embraced experiment however very much in its infancy, what is being reported is the drop in number of homeless on the cities’ streets. The initial successes have stimulated the funding of the project and further creation of low-income units. Reportedly 80% of the program’s participants remain housed however they are not automatically rid of their addiction habits and more often than not, continue in their cycle of substance abuse indoors. There are no statistics on how many have stabilized, found employment and started contributing rent. It is a long way before the rehabilitation part of the program is tested and as the article acknowledges the “change will come in fits and starts, for cities as well as for individuals.”
Not to discredit the effort, it is notable in an era of conservative politics. Homelessness advocate Bob Erlenbusch points out:
… federal programs for low-income housing, which can prevent homelessness, have languished in the Bush years or been cut. Also, cities have combined federal and local public money with foundation and corporate grants to start these programs.
( by Mary Reynolds at Planetizen )
It is not clear where the financial support will keep coming from once the initial investment has been made and the excitement subsides. As long as this ideologically conservative approach ( apartment “ownership” stimulating the dispossessed into discipline and health )will coax the government into supporting the program ( or any social program ), the means are of no consequence. Ultimately the goal is universal - cleaner streets and a healthy society.