logo
What Trump's attack on 'Housing First' means for Indy's effort to end chronic homelessness

What Trump's attack on 'Housing First' means for Indy's effort to end chronic homelessness

Leaders of a new city-backed program to essentially end street homelessness say it was designed so that local taxpayer and philanthropic dollars will fund the $8.1 million Year 1 cost.
But it's unclear how leaders will raise the money to pay for the three-year effort's $50 million estimated price tag, as Republicans at the state and federal level become increasingly hostile toward the "Housing First" approach that's foundational to the new effort, called Streets to Home Indy.
In the nation's top office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order July 24 that aims to steer money away from "Housing First" efforts and empower city and state governments to crack down on unsheltered homelessness. Critics are especially worried by Trump's calls for more "involuntary commitment," a process by which health workers can forcibly detain and medicate people against their will.
Streets to Home Indy aims to get ahead of any policy shifts. By next June, the program aims to house more than 300 people known to live unsheltered across Indianapolis in homeless camps, abandoned buildings or vehicles.
Over three years, the plan is to move the quarter of Indy's homeless population that is unsheltered or experiencing chronic homelessness — meaning they have been homeless for more than a year and have at least one health issue — into permanent housing. (About 60% of people facing chronic homelessness are also unsheltered, according to a 2024 count.)
Overall, the goal is to make the experience of homelessness in Indianapolis, where the homeless population exceeded 1,800 people in 2025, "rare, brief and non-recurring" by the end of 2028, leaders say. Along with Streets to Home Indy, another important part of that effort is the publicly funded low-barrier shelter that will add 150 temporary beds by 2027.
"It's not that we are going to completely end homelessness. People will experience housing crises," Chelsea Haring-Cozzi, CEO of the Coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention, said during a recent town hall on Streets to Home Indy. "But what we have to do is end street homelessness, because people shouldn't experience a housing crisis that leads them to the streets. There should be safe, inclusive places for people to land and get them to housing."
With the nation's homeless population reaching a record-high of more than 770,000 people last year, many conservative politicians are demanding tougher approaches, such as banning street encampments and forcing homeless people into treatment centers and hospitals.
The tangible effects of Trump's July 24 order remain unclear. But Republicans' embrace of its intent could foreshadow challenges in paying for Indy's new three-year effort, which Haring-Cozzi estimated will cost about $50 million. That money will primarily pay for rental assistance, moving costs and social workers who direct clients toward housing, medical treatment and government benefits.
State Republicans have already criticized Housing First programs and shown their willingness to ban street camping on public property. Earlier this year, the Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill that would have forced local police to clear any homeless camps and potentially arrest people who wouldn't comply. State senators let the proposal die without a vote.
State Rep. Andrew Ireland, an Indianapolis Republican who supported the bill, said at the time that the goal was not to put homeless people in prison, but to leverage that threat to force them into mental health and substance abuse treatment.
In a statement supporting Trump's order, Ireland rejected the idea that mandating treatment is cruel while refusing to shut down homeless camps is compassionate.
"President Trump is right: Letting people set up permanent camps in our parks and on our sidewalks is not compassion, it's chaos," Ireland said in a written statement Aug. 1. "It's unsafe for families, bad for neighborhoods, and often traps people in cycles of addiction and crime."
Homelessness: Critics see hypocrisy in Fountain Square camp closure as new details emerge. Why the camp closed
Advocates for homeless people agree that allowing them to live and die on the streets is unacceptable; that's why the Streets to Home Indy program exists.
But they insist the solution is to build and maintain more housing with voluntary social services — not to push people from one camp to the next or force them into a behavioral health system that's already short on beds and workers. Critics also say that while homeless people do have higher rates of addiction and mental health issues, Trump is exaggerating their role while understating economic issues like higher rents and stagnant wages.
Even with lackluster federal investment, the Housing First philosophy — which places homeless people into housing quickly with few conditions and then offers services — is proven to help break the cycle of poverty.
Of more than 380 people housed so far through the Housing to Recovery Fund, a local Housing First initiative established in 2019, more than 95% have remained stably housed for at least a year, according to the Central Indiana Community Foundation.
Housing First policies are also credited with a drastic reduction in veteran homelessness nationwide and in Indianapolis since 2010. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in Indianapolis fell to 125 people this year, whereas nearly 400 veterans were homeless 10 years ago.
"Supportive services are way more effective when people are in housing," Haring-Cozzi said, "and not in survival mode."
Because of recent turmoil at the Indianapolis Housing Agency and uncertainty in the federal government, Indy's service providers pushed for Streets to Home Indy to get started with local dollars. The Year 1 money comes in three equal parts from the Indianapolis City-County Council, a public-private partnership called the Housing to Recovery Fund and donations from philanthropic and religious groups.
The $50 million cost for three years could drop significantly if the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides more housing vouchers by way of the IHA, Haring-Cozzi said. Other possible funding sources she cited are already strained Medicaid dollars that state legislators could direct toward homelessness programs, money from the state's opioid settlement and increased philanthropic donations.
"We fully know that that is possible," Haring-Cozzi said of the $50 million price tag. "We're working every angle we can to have sustainability for the full initiative."
There's reason for doubt, though. The city's five-year plan to end chronic homelessness by 2023 fell short, despite a surge in federal dollars to help local governments address the issue.
From the start of the pandemic through summer 2021, Indianapolis spent about $35 million in federal money on homelessness and housing. That included $15 million to pay for hotel rooms for homeless people to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in shelters.
Haring-Cozzi blames that prior effort's failure on a shift to survival mode necessitated by the pandemic.
But some like Michael-Paul Hart, the Republican minority leader on the Indianapolis City-County Council, remain unconvinced. Resistance from him and other councilors could be an obstacle, as the city prepares to budget more frugally in anticipation of lower-than-expected property tax revenues due to a new state law.
"The first time we had a number close to ($50 million) was COVID ... and we spent that in a year and a half and people were still unhoused," Hart said after attending the town hall. "So what keeps people housed after the 12-month timeline they're proposing here?"
"My concern," he added, "is repeating the past."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Nexstar Media Group buying Tegna in deal worth $6.2 billion
Nexstar Media Group buying Tegna in deal worth $6.2 billion

Chicago Tribune

time15 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Nexstar Media Group buying Tegna in deal worth $6.2 billion

Nexstar Media Group is buying broadcast rival Tegna for $6.2 billion, which will help strengthen its local news offerings. The transaction, if approved, will bring together two major players in U.S. television and the country's local news landscape. Nexstar oversees more than 200 owned and partner stations in 116 markets nationwide today and also runs networks like The CW and NewsNation. Meanwhile, Tegna owns 64 news stations across 51 markets. 'The initiatives being pursued by the Trump administration offer local broadcasters the opportunity to expand reach, level the playing field, and compete more effectively with the Big Tech and legacy Big Media companies that have unchecked reach and vast financial resources,' Nexstar Chairman and CEO Perry Sook said in a statement on Tuesday. 'We believe Tegna represents the best option for Nexstar to act on this opportunity.' Nexstar said Tuesday that the deal will also help it give advertisers a bigger variety of local and national broadcast and digital advertising options. Nexstar will pay $22 in cash for each share of Tegna's outstanding stock. The deal could potentially help kick off even further consolidation in America's broadcast industry. Nexstar, founded in 1996, has itself grow substantially with acquisitions over the latest two decades, becoming the biggest operator of local TV stations in the U.S. after it purchased Tribune Media back in 2019. Nexstar's purchase of Tegna also arrives amid wider regulatory shifts. Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman the Federal Communications Commission, which will need to give the transaction the green light, has long advocated for loosening industry restrictions. On Aug. 7, the FCC announced that it would be repealing 98 broadcast rules and requirements that it identified as 'obsolete, outdated, or unnecessary.' Some of those rules date back nearly 50 years, the FCC said, and apply to 'old technology that is no longer used.' Carr maintained that such provisions no longer serve public interest. In late July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also vacated the FCC's 'top four' rule, which has long prohibited ownership of more than one of the top four stations in a single market. The ruling is still subject to a monthslong assessment by the FCC, but could significantly clear the way for future mergers in the industry. In company earnings calls held in early August, before Tegna and Nexstar publicly confirmed merger talks, both Tegna CEO Michael Steib and Nexstar's Sook pointed directly to this ruling, and applauded Carr's deregulation agenda as a whole. 'We believe that deregulation is necessary, important and coming,' Steib said in Tegna's Aug. 7 call, noting that local broadcasters are 'up against big tech competitors who have absolutely no encumbrances in how they compete.' Beyond their core broadcast TV businesses, both Nexstar and Tegna also boast digital news, mobile app and streaming offerings, all of which have played key roles for the industry as consumers change the way they consume news and other entertainment. Broadcast TV has been hit particularly hard by 'cord-cutting,' with more and more households trading their cable or satellite subscriptions into content they can get via the internet. The deal is expected to close by the second half of 2026. It still needs approval from Tegna shareholders. Shares of Nexstar jumped 7.6% in premarket trading, and Tegna's rose 4.3%.

We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer

According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.

Trump offers assurance of no US boots on the ground in Ukraine
Trump offers assurance of no US boots on the ground in Ukraine

The Hill

time15 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump offers assurance of no US boots on the ground in Ukraine

President Trump on Tuesday offered his assurances that U.S. boots would not be on the ground to defend the Ukraine-Russia border as part of any security assurances for Kyiv to end the war. 'What kind of assurances do you feel like you have that going forward, and past this Trump administration, it won't be American boots on the ground defending that border?' 'Fox & Friends' co-host Charles Hurt asked Trump during a phone interview. 'Well, you have my assurance — and I'm president. I'm just trying to stop people from being killed,' Trump responded. The president earlier in the interview had indicated European nations may put boots on the ground. It's unclear if Russia would agree to that as part of any peace agreement. 'We've got the European nations, and they'll front load it, and they'll have, some of them…they want to have, you know, boots on the ground,' Trump said. 'I don't think it's going to be a problem to be honest with you. I think Putin is tired, I think they're all tired of it. But, you never know.' Trump called into 'Fox & Friends' the day after he hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and top European leaders at the White House for talks on how to end the war in Ukraine, which has been raging since Russian forces invaded in 2022. Trump and European officials discussed potential security assurances for Ukraine as part of a peace deal that would prevent future Russian aggression, though the specifics remain murky. Zelensky said he hoped those details would be ironed out in the next 10 days. Trump has definitively ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine as part of any peace deal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store