They have a program like this in Portland, it got a lot of push back from homeless people. Homeless people who were jumping through all the hoops, drug counseling, applying for jobs ect were on waiting list to get apartments while people who had gone through no hoops were getting housing. Not saying that I'm against the idea but just thought it created some odd friction amongst the homeless.
The definition of "chronically homeless" can and will cause some issues. While the VA is about as bureaucratic as an agency can get, they are trying to take a step in this direction with their housing program (HUD-VASH) for veterans and clear out their waiting list in the process. They're contracting non-profits to do their outreach and screening before setting them up with a voucher to get an apartment. So the bureaucratic hoops are still there, just outsourced and requiring minimal effort from the homeless individual. The contracted social worker takes them around to gather all their paperwork/medical records/bank statements and screens them. Here's the definition of chronically homeless as defined by the HEARTH Act of 2009. (2) Has been homeless and living or residing in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least 1 year or on at least four separate occasions in the last 3 years; (3) Has an adult head head of household (or a minor head of household if no adult is present in the household) with a diagnosable SUD, serious mental illness, developmental disability ..., post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co-occurence of two or more of those conditions; and (4) A person who currently lives or resides in an instituional care facility, including a jail, SUD or mental health treatment facility, hospital, or other similar facility, and has resided there for fewer than 90 days must be considered chronically homeless if such person met all of the requirements described in subparagraph 4e prior to entering that facility. The housing I case manage at is technically transitional housing and they can live here for up to two years. Most of my clients fell under "chronically homeless" before they entered here, and have been on a waiting list for their HUD-VASH vouchers for over a year (the backlog is at 2 years). So because they've been here for over 90 days, they are no longer technically chronically homeless in the eyes of the law, even though the VA is not restricted to giving to only giving chronically homeless apartments. This is a battle I'm fighting with them right now; my clients were chronically homeless before entering our housing and many will be chronically homeless after their term here expires if the VA decides to fuck them. I'm concerned that this will create an incentive for someone to become chronically homeless in order to get housing, and I feel like one of those people who says "homeless people are just lazy!" by saying that. But, they will have no reason to take steps toward becoming independent, drug-free, and seeking mental health; if they keep fucking up the house fairy will swoop down and give them a house. My clients are already talking about leaving if their applications get denied to go live on the street again for a year. Because they have no other choice, at least in California, where Social Security Disability can barely pay for rent. Of course, I have some bias involved because it essentially nulls everything my organization is doing. I think this re-envisioning of housing the homeless will work wonders in states with small populations. But it could be disastrous in states with a large homeless population.(1) Is homeless and lives or resides in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter;
The problem is the lack of housing to go to all people battling homelessness. It seems like a housing first policy is great for some people. When giving a safe place to live and call home some people who don't deal well with shelters are able to get their shit together while other people are capable of getting their act together to "earn" housing. I'd think some experimentation with how you get people into stable housing is a good thing but sounds like the situation you see your clients in is pretty dismal.
I find these programs amazing and really heartwarming. It's really nice to see politicians put morality on the back burner and just solve a problem, especially one of this magnitude. I wonder how well something like this would work in a big urban environment. I suspect not as well, but hopefully someone will try one day. Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, etc, are in such need of housing for the disaffected; something like this could do wonders, but I doubt it could ever get the political support to get funding.
That said, it may be harder to convince Detroit's non-democratic manager that it actually saves money.Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland
It seems like Detroit could do this pretty easily. I'm sure there would be challenges, like ensuring habitability. But it seems like vast swathes of dirt-cheap land and houses would make this easier, not harder.
Yeah, I think that it would be great, though the program would most likely need to be tweaked quite a bit for each locale. Still, I hope that at least someone is out there doing research on how to make a program like this appealing to politicians in large urban centers. I'm not very familiar with the housing situations in Midwestern cities, but I know in New York that a big problem would be the issue of rent-control. In Boston, one problem I could foresee would be that Boston is actually very small, but has a very large metropolitan area and so a lot of different groups would have to find a way to work together nearly seamlessly before any sort of action could take place.I wonder how well something like this would work in a big urban environment. I suspect not as well, but hopefully someone will try one day.