Debate Housing First vs Continuum of Care

[wac_432]

The recent study in California about homelessness is telling. While pundits on both sides will cherry-pick the data to support their pet cause, I’m trying to take an objective look at the most important data, so I read the entire report. It is, of course, biased in one direction, but bias doesn’t mean wrong. At least not always.

Here’s some generalities that don’t make the headlines.
Homeless in California are:
70% Men
33% transplants to CA (vs. native born)
10% transients (they were homeless before entering CA)
Homeless children: 66% are with a mother.
Only 6% of homeless are veterans.

Drugs:
65% Use drugs 3X or more a week.
Of these, 64% used drugs prior to becoming homeless.
57% tried drug treatment.

Pathway to Homelessness:
50% became homeless after getting free housing (family, friends)
32% became homeless after rents got too high.
19% became homeless after being institutionalized.

Income:
Prior to becoming unhoused:
Median monthly housing costs were $375 (because many lived rent-free with family/friends). Median income was $960
Covid influence:
22% unhoused say it was due to COVID response

Reason:
About 50% of people became unhoused due to economic reasons. The rest were social or health.
Economic:
Lost income was top reason: almost 2X more important (22%) than housing costs being too high (second highest) (12%). Rent increases were cited by only 8%, below scams and non-housing costs increase.

Social:
Conflict among residents / Wanted own space/ didn’t want to impose 60%

Health:
#1 reason: Substance abuse, #2 Illness.

Homeless families are using less drugs since becoming homeless. TAY (Teens-Young Adults) are using a lot more since becoming homeless. Single adults are using a bit more since becoming homeless.

Income sources:
Very few panhandlers. The majority get their income from government benefits.

As I read it, and trying to be unbiased, I believe a “one-size-fits-all” approach to homelessness is wrong. The reasons and motivations of a single male 20-year-old drug abuser are radically different from a 40-something mother of two living out of her car. I think homeless people need to be catagorized (as this study did) and then assisted in different ways.

For families and possibly single women the housing-first approach is appropriate. This is only 30-35% of the homeless population. This portion of the homeless, based on the study, are the ones trying hardest to turn their lives around. They are less likely to turn “wet houses” into unsafe housing or use free housing as an enabler to abuse drugs.

For the other groups, the primary driver--from the study’s results bolded above--is economic hardship. Therefore, the focus should be on promoting economic independence, reducing the barriers to homeless people finding employment, and possibly education/training/socialization programs. The second-highest cause of someone falling from a group living situation into homelessness was personal disagreements.

Anecdotally, some of the biggest barriers to homeless finding and holding down work were jobs eliminated by the pandemic response and the inability to achieve and maintain presentable clothing/hygiene in order to convince someone to hire them. More public showers, bathrooms, laundry, and storage lockers seem like they would be cheaper, less of a liability, and more effective than housing first for homeless male TAY and adults.

The study also indicates that lowering pressure on drug trade/use promotes and prolongs homelessness. It's possible this is a correlation and not causation, but it is more likely that the availability of drugs exacerbates homelessness.

[wac_432]

What is distressing about the study, is not the data. Data is data, and--despite the headlines--it does not upend common knowledge about homelessness. There is nothing revolutionary about the idea that people fall into homelessness after losing their job and exhausting their friends and family resources. There’s no surprise that drug use is rampant in the homeless population and that drug abusers are overrepresented in those who become homeless. It’s a straw man argument that anyone believes the majority of homeless are transients who rode in on the rails. There are a significant number of these, and they tend to be the most problematic and visible population, but no one ever claimed they were the majority.

The conclusions drawn by the authors, and their policy recommendations, show that there is no real impetus to meaningfully reduce homelessness. The homeless population is just treated as another political football, with policy recommendations that fly in the face of the data.

There is a section which asks homeless people which of several options would have kept them housed for at least 2 more years. The options were varying forms of handouts (housing vouchers, more government assistance of 300-400 more per month, or a one time lump sum handout of 10,000). I don’t think there was a “none of the above” option, and there was certainly no “improving economic conditions and getting my old job back.”

The majority of respondents chose housing vouchers that would keep their housing costs below 30% of their income. This is not an unreasonable proposal, but--despite all the data pointing to the fact that job loss, drugs, and social disruption were the causes of homelessness, the authors of the study focus on how to go about distributing their theoretical vouchers, rather than even mentioning that improving economic conditions and enabling people to get and hold down jobs would have the greatest impact on reducing homelessness.

I do agree with the authors that it is encouraging when--given the choice--the majority of homeless people pick the option that is the most tied to working and improving their overall station, rather than just a large or small monetary handout. This defies the “convention” that most homeless are that way by choice. That, of course, is another straw man argument, as most homeless are the ones you don’t see; those living in their vehicles, staying hidden, and still trying to get by. It’s only the small portion of very far gone vagrant homeless that cause the majority of homeless problems/crime/violence.

Giving rough numbers to how to target homelessness, here are the four largest identifiable feeder pools to homelessness which could be reduced:
15% Programs to promote social living - this may not be feasible.
11% More Jobs / Preventing Job Loss / Improving Economics
6% Housing vouchers / more low-income housing
4% Eviction moratoriums, rent control, rent freezes

The bolded actions are those promoted by the study, and seem to contradict the data it delivers. Looking at the broader picture of homelessness in the United States, those areas more focused on economic expansion over government assistance have lower rates of homelessness. Further, the study clearly indicates that economics is the primary driver of homelessness, not housing costs. Housing costs are a contributor, but--according to the homeless, themselves--they are tertiary at best, behind job loss and social issues.

Further, this is the headline from the AP:

“New study says high housing costs, low income push Californians into homelessness”

when it should read

“New study says job loss, social issues push Californians into homelessness.”

What isn’t clear from the study is the influence of drugs and alcohol, but this seems to be a purposeful obfuscation or omission. The study points out that POC’s and non-CIS people are overrepresented in the homeless population. Blacks are 6% of the population but 26% of the homeless (4:1 overrepresentation).

42% of people who became homeless abused drugs prior to losing their place to stay. (64% of 65%) 10.6% of Californians abuse drugs. Therefore drug abusers are also overrepresented in the homeless population by approximately the same ratio as blacks. It damages the credibility of the study not to point this out or to include stronger restrictions on drugs (and alcohol) in order to reduce homelessness.

While there are indirect ways of addressing the prejudice, discrimination, and other social ills that plague minorities, there is a direct way to address the drug and alcohol problem through restrictions, policing, and prosecution of drug use and sales. Just like homelessness, cracking down on drugs won’t eliminate the problem, but it will reduce it, along with the train of resultant social ills.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by wac_432

The homeless population is just treated as another political football, with policy recommendations that fly in the face of the data.

Not quite. In California in general and San Francisco pre pandemic were places that have been experiencing long term growth in population and economy. California is the state with the highest GDP. The problem is income inequality. i.e. The City of San Francisco is(or was) very top heavy in terms of income such that the middle class got priced out of some of it's cities. Too many billionaires and not enough average joes.

There is a section which asks homeless people which of several options would have kept them housed for at least 2 more years. The options were varying forms of handouts (housing vouchers, more government assistance of 300-400 more per month, or a one time lump sum handout of 10,000). I don’t think there was a “none of the above” option, and there was certainly no “improving economic conditions and getting my old job back.”

The problem is that such a question would be useless. In olden days people many people were unionized such that after a lay off the people that companies were forced to offer the job back to the person they laid off at the same pay rate. So if the economy improved those people would fill those positions first. Now days an employer would try to fill the position with a someone who is willing to take lower pay. Finally the jobs in question for various reasons might not be coming back or the jobs that are growing most might either might not be able to support a person living singly or the person might not have the skills for it.

Also disability and other government support short of rental subsidies, typically pay too low to allow someone to rent by themselves. Not to mention people who have criminal records, mental problems or drug and alcohol problems have much greater problems finding employment.

The majority of respondents chose housing vouchers that would keep their housing costs below 30% of their income. This is not an unreasonable proposal, but--despite all the data pointing to the fact that job loss, drugs, and social disruption were the causes of homelessness, the authors of the study focus on how to go about distributing their theoretical vouchers, rather than even mentioning that improving economic conditions and enabling people to get and hold down jobs would have the greatest impact on reducing homelessness.

The reason why they asked the question is because rent is too high in those places. This is because there is too much demand for housing by people who can pay far more than what a low income(or even middle) renter can pay.

To compare cities. According to rent café

My town of Chicago has an average rent price of $2,215 for a 1 bed room apartment. Of which, 49% were paying less than $2,000 and 54% were paying more for it. Of the 49% paying less than $2000. 22% were paying as low as $1,500 and 21% were paying as low as $1000 and the rest(7% less) $500-700. To be able to afford rent alone and not spend more than 30% on it, you would need to bring in between $3000-6,645(after taxes) a month. Full time min. wage in Chicago would bring in 2,400 a month before taxes. Too low to get the number under 30% in most cases but you at least earned enough to make the rent in some cases.

San Francisco has an average rent price of $3,313 for slightly smaller 1 bed room apartment. Of which 90% were paying more than $2000 for it and the lucky 1% were paying $700-1000 for it! The minimum wage may be higher but not high enough to make up the difference. To pay a rent of $3,313 a month a person needs to be bring in $9,939 a month. That is $119,268 a year for a freaking 1 bed room apartment. There also are not a lot of lower cost options as only 10% are paying less than $2000. A Full time min. wage job there would only bring in 2,891 a month. You have worked 40 hours a week and you are short way short.

The problem here is that the price of stability is too high(the amount of money needed to be out of danger of homeless and be able to save enough to get some cushion to handle emergencies.) Basically your training programs need to be able to take someone from homeless to $119,268 a year to pay the rent without subsidy. For Chicago it would just be $79,740 for an average rent and many much lower priced options that may be just $36,000 would do.