Opinion: Current homeless policy only perpetuates homelessness

Homelessness has risen by 30% over the past five years. The issue isn’t a lack of commitment or resources; federal, state, and local governments have spent over $100 billion during that same period. The problem is the homeless policy, its implementation, and administration.

Five years ago, I was named director of housing at a community nonprofit. My responsibilities include managing various housing programs aimed at reducing homelessness. One of these programs is a city-run, HUD-funded Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) initiative. The policies that govern PSH have led to an increase in local homelessness and, in some cases, deaths.

For decades, government policies have mandated adherence to the Housing First model, which places homeless individuals in free apartments with no conditions. However, advocates have taken this policy to extremes, granting the homeless full autonomy in decision-making. This application of the policy is particularly problematic for my agency, where addiction is the primary driver of homelessness.

“Addiction reduces people’s ability to exercise self-control, to accurately weigh long-term versus short-term consequences, and to make decisions that benefit them.”

Addicted homeless individuals repeatedly struggle to make good decisions. They frequently miss appointments that could result in housing. Individuals repeatedly decline free apartments due to location or shared living arrangements, choosing to remain homeless when housing options are available. 

A recent city-commissioned study recommended, “It is important to instead target CoC PSH to the most vulnerable individuals, which includes people who are not currently interested in recovery [from addiction].” A policy that enables and protects individuals from negative consequences, including standard lease prohibitions against illegal substance use. (In my experience, illegal drug use leads to drug dealing, theft, prostitution, and violence.) Additionally, prohibiting eviction for illegal substance use has led to deadly outcomes, usually from drug overdoses.

By failing to require adherence to laws, rules, or responsibilities, such as sobriety, education, or employment as a condition of housing, program participants are disincentivized from leaving a free apartment, leading to stays of years or, in some cases, over two decades. Again, resulting in increased homelessness.

Housing First does nothing to address the underlying causes of homelessness. Sixty-four percent of PSH participants are likely to become homeless (or die) within five years, and 88 percent within 10 years. Despite an almost 90% failure rate, cities are fighting a proposed policy change that would require sobriety and employment. They are continuing to require agencies to adhere to the Housing First model.

The administration of grants also creates issues. HUD grants are carried out by local municipalities, which often struggle to fulfill their obligations. Reimbursements to agencies are frequently delayed by 60 days and often by 90 days or more, placing an unnecessary strain on agencies. Due to the lack of results and financial challenges, many agencies are reconsidering their involvement in PSH programs. The fewer agencies offering services, the fewer individuals can be helped.

Many agency employees and I were previously homeless due to our addiction. We weren’t offered free apartments without conditions. Instead, we received long-term treatment for substance use disorder, demonstrating that mandated treatment works. We were then placed in agency apartments with the requirements of staying sober, attending counseling and support meetings, and working. All of us have stable non-subsidized housing, and some even own homes. In short, we were held accountable.

Based on my and my staff’s experience, the agency began a housing program for homeless individuals who have completed long-term treatment. After a year, 95% of previously homeless individuals remain housed and are paying rent without any government subsidy.

The above policy will not solve the homeless issue. Treatment requires the individual’s willingness. While housing is not a right, society has an obligation to keep individuals, particularly the most vulnerable, safe.

Designated spaces for homeless individuals should be created, with security, services, and basic needs provided. Opponents again argue that this disrespects individual autonomy and that homeless people should have the right to make their own choices, including where to stay. Notwithstanding the above disastrous consequences of doing so, this position also completely ignores that those living outside, who neglect their health, are exposed to the elements, lack sanitary facilities, face the risk of victimization, and are often driven by addiction, pose a clear danger to themselves and, in some cases, others. In the interest of keeping people safe, society has always made decisions for those whose choices pose a danger to themselves or others. Until we adopt homeless policies that require all stakeholders to recognize their limitations and their responsibilities, homelessness will continue to increase.  

Albie Cullen is an attorney and Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor (LADC-I).