For reasons that remain a bit murky, the Bush administration, which has a terrible record on everything, seems to have a great record on homelessness. There was a HUD report out earlier this week indicating that some reforms in approach that the administration -- more specifically, a guy Philip Mangano -- has implemented are being stunningly successful and we've seen a 30 percent drop in homelessness between 2005 and 2007. Dana Goldstein has an informative brief interview with the New America Foundation's Douglas McGray about Mangano's philosophy and you can read this McGray article on Mangano from back in 2004. Hopefully the next administration of either party will continue to build on this foundation.
« Learning The Rules | Main | Race Cards »
Housing First
01 Aug 2008 08:46 am
Comments (13)
Here's one way to do it:
"Long Island advocates for the homeless said the declines occurred because HUD changed guidelines in late 2006 for counting the homeless, requiring an interview with each person counted. In 2005, counters could use their judgment to determine if a person was homeless.
Many homeless men and women - especially the chronically homeless - declined to be interviewed and were not counted, advocates said. From 2005 to 2007, the number of chronically homeless in Nassau fell from 164 to 12 and in Suffolk from 435 to 40, the federal report said.
"The numbers are down ... because there were restrictions put on us," said Connie Lassandro, Nassau County's director of housing and homeless services. "Obviously [HUD] is thrilled because they see the number is down. It's all about funding. If the numbers are down, they can say the need's not there.""
- Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lihome305782295jul30,0,3166597.story
Matt:
As you stated yourself, "For reasons that remain a bit murky..."
There is enough doubt about the methodology to cast significant doubt on the accuracy, if not the veracity of the "reduction."
While I would like to be able to give this administration credit for doing something/anything right, I simply do not believe anything good that I hear about it. THAT is the most depressing truth.
Hmmm...doesn't seem so murky to me. Mystery solved!
Here's a way to improve this already impressive process: don't count people as homeless unless they come up to the interviewer and say, "I am homeless." And then, after that works, they can further reduce 'the number of homeless' by just letting the interviewers stay in their air conditioned offices, fielding stray walk-ins. And after that works we can finally eliminate this scourge by not letting anyone in the building. Presto!
I do not doubt that the "housing first" strategy works -- we are seeing it in action here in Massachusetts. Simply put, the old strategy was to try to provide social and medical services to the chronically homeless in the hope that eventually they would stabilize their lives and get a home. That strategy didn't work, largely because the stress of homelessness undoes everything positive that might derive from the help.
"Housing First" puts people in homes, and provides them the services to help them stay in them. It follows the simple rule that "homes alleviate homelessness."
The role of the Bush administration in this needs to be understood. I don't know anything about that. Blind squirrels etc.
And note, this is about the chronic homeless, often mentally ill, alcoholic, drug-addicted, socially isolated. But there are lots of mentally ill, alcoholic, drug-addicted, socially isolated people who maintain themselves in some sort of housing. And it's better for them, and for the society as a whole, that they do. "Housing first" moves the chronically homeless into that latter category.
The resistance to it comes from NIMBYism and from the perception that people who have screwed up their lives do not deserve housing, if they cannot earn it themselves.
Not everything in public policy is a referendum on Bush.
(1) The federal government funds a variety of programs intended to reduce homelessness, under the McKinney Act of 1986. Since it puts up the money, it makes the rules.
(2) The premise of the "Housing First" program, which has been demonstrated to be correct, is that if you have a tendency to be crazy, sleeping outdoors or in a homeless shelter makes you crazier. Many people's symptoms moderate drastically when they have a private space to sleep in.
(3) Even if you give no weight at all to the suffering of the homeless themselves, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who has ever been to downtown anywhere that homelessness is an enormous drag on the quality of urban life for everyone else, so that getting people off the street (as opposed to having the police shift them from place to place) is a great benefit.
The problem is that these people have to live somewhere, and the government has to put them there, which opens up all kinds of opportunities for NIMBY types to wade in and gum up the works with zoning challenges. The federal Fair Housing Act is a useful tool for beating down this kind of resistance.
Anecdotal evidence here--in Chicago, there seems to be a noticeable uptick in the number of people on the street (daytime only--I'm not near the loop at night often) in the past 6 months after a long decline.
Also, (being excessively flip about a real problem) consider that in 2005 and 2006, ANYONE could have gotten a mortgage, provided they didn't have a problem lying. Maybe all the 2004 homeless bought condos in Florida or homes in the Inland Empire?
For an example of the second factor mentioned by Tom in Ma, here is part of a comment from the Douthat thread on this topic:
The homeless population is small (at most about 600,000) and providing subsistence for them within the capabilities of philanthropies assisted by local police, so federal involvement would seem gratuitous. If there are schizophrenics who belong in supervised apartment buildings or asylums and cripples who qualify for federal disability benefits, it would seem that social workers employed by the Salvation Army and like agencies in conjunction with the local police would be well placed to identify them and steer them to where they ought to be. You are still going to have people who will exercise their free will and refuse to re-enter the world of working people (if they be able) and refuse to stop boozing and taking street drugs. Providing them with a meal of bulgar wheat and a bed in a flop house is about the best you can do, and that is something that does not require the services of the federal civil service.
roac -- if what you say is true why was there essentially no such thing as homelessness in the US from WW II to around 1980?
roac -- if what you say is true why was there essentially no such thing as homelessness in the US from WW II to around 1980?
First of all, "no such thing" is a gross exaggeration. Ever heard the word "Hooverville"? But as the linked McGray article points out, homelessness increased dramatically in the '80s when the big mental institutions closed and their residents were dumped on the street.
The McGray article attributes deinstitutionalization to "liberal" advocates for the mentally ill, who argued that people would do better in the community than warehoused in large buildings with no one to interact with but other patients and guards. Which is true -- but the deal they thought they had was that the money saved by closing the asylums would be shifted over to supportive housing services. The Reagan administration, of course, cut taxes instead. (Which this McGray person must have known, which makes me think his spinning "Housing First" as a conservative program was disingenuous.)
Apologies. I see you said "from WWII to 1980." I didn't read carefully.
Comments closed August 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Homelessness seems more a local issue ... exactly what policy tools are available to the federal government? Why are we sure that this Mangano guy had influence over the 30% improvement, rather than attributing it to broader economic or social trends, or changes in approach by local govts?
(Note, I didn't read the links)
Posted by nbt | August 1, 2008 9:34 AM