Homelessness Reform

Homelessness Reform

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, California has the largest population of people experiencing homelessness, with nearly 130,000, 90,000 of whom are unsheltered (Hageman). Chronic homelessness is a significant challenge in the United States of America. Consequently, thousands of American citizens are usually living in the streets, stuck in poor conditions, which render them incapable of finding a permanent or stable livelihood. However, there have been extensive debates both at the local and federal states, which discussions are ranging from the national rent control policy and the controversial “right to shelter” as some of the most appropriate solutions. Despite all that, a keener look into the strategies adopted by the United States of America to address the severe homelessness indicates that the policies are in place are not sustainable, and that calls for the need for a better approach. By evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of homeless reform, this article illustrates the political and policy discussions that contrast the implementation and workability of homeless policies in the United States of America.

The first controversial policy is the “Housing First Policy,” which works by finding the homeless permanent living structures first, without considering any factors such as employment status, mental state, among others. Once they are housible, then the government can continue to work with the beneficiaries to solve other issues. The policy makes insist that initial housing eliminates homelessness; on the other hand, treatment first does not reduce homelessness levels. However, controversies surround this policy since not everyone agrees with the effectiveness of the strategy. The “Housing First Policy” was implemented in the George Bush era (Briggs); however, it has been a topic of discussion, especially on the right of the political scale. To be more precise, the costs of providing housing for a large number of homeless people are costly. Besides, thousands of citizens are homeless due to the lack of affordable housing and the reduction in public housing benefits. What is more, many owners and developers of extensive housing projects are not comfortable hosting drug addicts or mentally unstable citizens.

Housing first cannot solve the problem of homelessness. In that, there is a project to demolish all public housing systems and change them to private housing. The high cases of homelessness do not seem like they will reduce anytime soon. The government is planning to destroy projects that are housing some citizens already; on the contrary, and the same government is implementing the housing project; this is a type of service model that eliminate homelessness in the United States. According to research, the best way to make the housing first policy applicable is by developing the welfare system (Briggs). In nations where the same method is applied, they change the Housing First to Housing Led, which means that housing provision is considered human rights. As a result, their priority is to get homeless people into permanent and sustainable homes. Besides, homelessness is a challenge in every European Union nation (Baxter et al. 379); however, Housing Led initiatives have proven to be successful in countries like Finland and Denmark.

Another controversial homelessness reform is the “Linear Approach.” It has been in place since the early 1980s and is the central housing service system in the United States of America. Many citizens and programs prefer this system to the Housing First model. According to the linear programs, homeless citizens must pass through various social services stages to attain a permanent shelter. That is an emergency shelter, transitional shelter, and finally, permanent housing (Briggs). In other words, it anticipates that the homeless will enter and qualify from various programs, and the advancement is based on resurgence towards self-sufficiency. In short, it is based on the fact that beneficiaries must be reformed to be declared fit to handle housing. The linear approach perceives permanent housing as an essential resource that is likely to be wasted by people who are not ready; for instance, drug addicts and mentally challenged individuals. Therefore, for the homeless to get a permanent habit, they must go through stages that ensure mental stability, abstaining from drugs, and financial stability.

The first criticism of the linear approach is the extensive reliance on emergency shelters as the early essential stage. In Los Angeles, there is a federal program that awards millions of dollars yearly to community agencies to help find short-term housing for veterans and deliver vital services to get their lives together (Jennifer). Of course, emergency shelters are essential since they provide immediate temporary housing units for the homeless. However, the reality is that these shelters are not adequate for a large number of homeless people. In most cases, beneficiaries have to endure long waiting lists, and some of them end up with no shelters. What is more, the shelter providers may refuse to offer services due to multiple reasons; for instance, the programs might shy away from mentally challenged persons and drug addicts. Secondly, individuals with a large number of family members might miss out due to the limited space in emergency shelters. What is more, the individuals who are eligible for the housing structures might feel undervalued once they realize that their accommodations are for dysfunctional people who cannot handle permanent houses. All in all, the notion that the linear approach provides emergency shelters is only valid in very few cases. What is more, the homeless must pass attain complex requirements to gain access to appropriate housing.

The criminalization of homelessness is another controversial factor concerning homelessness reforms. Homelessness is a crime in many jurisdictions all over the United States, and there are no signs of changing this law. Due to pressure from the tourism sector, there are spates of law target the homeless. In Denver, the state’s 76 largest cities have, as a group, passed 351 ordinances that target homeless people, including bans on camping and bans on sharing food outside (Sarma and Brand). Despite all these laws by various jurisdictions, the criminalization of homeless people does not solve this menace. Besides, the causes of homelessness are groupable into two primary categories; that is, structural and individual factors. Structural causes include high levels of poverty, inaccessible public resources, inadequate mental health care, and expensive housing in the United States. For instance, in Detroit, policymakers insist that the primary cause of the high rate of homelessness is due to increasing numbers of evictions due to expensive housing all over the state. Therefore, one the best solution to homelessness would be to make housing more affordable and not criminalizing the homeless.

Generally, criminalization only makes the challenge worse. In that, apart from being inhumane, these policies exacerbate the problems that they are supposed to solve. Citizens who have criminal records that primarily arise from survival activities such as living in the streets face more challenges in accessing various services and getting employment opportunities, and this extends the cycle of homelessness. Besides, under federal law, citizens who have spent more than ninety days in prison automatically lose their homelessness status and can never be a priority when considering permanent housing structures. On the other hand, orders to stay away limit access to urgent social services by the homeless. In San Diego, for instance, many social services are downtown; however, the police department regularly issues stay-away-orders from these regions to individuals who are under arrest for sleeping on the street (Sarma and Brand). In the long run, the homeless cannot access services or food stamps without getting arrested. What is more, the stay-away-orders may cause people to lose contact with services providers who could help find suitable housing projects. Street homelessness refers to individuals who ‘regularly find themselves on the street during the day with nowhere to stay at night (Ramanuj 11). Thus, homeless people are not criminals.

Conclusion

Homelessness is groupable into various categories; that is, chronic episodic and temporary. Temporary homelessness is experienced when people are displaced in the occurrence of human or natural calamity like the hurricane. Episodic homelessness is the condition where someone is in and out of homelessness; it could be because of financial reasons or mental challenges. Over the last decade, two major factors are responsible for the high rate of homelessness in the United States. First of all, the steadily increasing rates of poverty and social disparity and the great scarcity of affordable rental housing. There have been lengthy debates both at the local and federal state with several discussions on the topic of homelessness. As a solution to this challenge, the government of the United States has implemented various policies. That is the controversial right to shelter, housing-first policy and the linear approach. By evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of homeless reform, a keener look into the strategies adopted by the United States of America to address the severe homelessness indicates that the policies that are in place are not sustainable, and thus, calls for the need of a better approach to eliminate this menace.

Works Cited

Baxter, Andrew J., et al. “Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” J Epidemiol Community Health 73.5 (2019): 379-387. https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/73/5/379.full.pdf

Briggs, Billy. “Housing First: the ‘counterintuitive’ method for solving urban homelessness.” The Rockefeller Foundation.  https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/20/housing-first-the-counterintuitive-method-for-solving-urban-homelessness. Accessed 20 October 2014.

HAGEMAN  ALEXANDER. “Tackling the Crisis of Homelessness in America.” Human Services.  https://www.alec.org/article/tackling-the-crisis-of-homelessness-in-america/. Accessed 9 August 2019.

Jennifer Steinhauer. “As Homelessness Plagues Los Angeles, Success Comes for Veterans.” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/16/us/politics/homeless-los-angeles-veterans.html. Accessed 16 February 2020.

Ramanuj, Parashar P. “Bearing the cost of the American dream: reflecting on street homelessness in America.” BJPsych International 16.1 (2019): 11-13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F8DADF9BAA2DD85FA344D3EE08B62FC2/S2056474017000320a.pdf/bearing_the_cost_of_the_american_dream_reflecting_on_street_homelessness_in_america.pdf

Sarma B. & Brand J. THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS: EXPLAINED. The appeal. https://theappeal.org/the-criminalization-of-homelessness-an-explainer-aa074d25688d/.Accessed 29 June 2018