Latest news with #HousingFirst
The Hill
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump order aims to make it easier to remove the homeless off the streets
President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order making it easier for cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets and get them treatment elsewhere. The order also calls on Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments' ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others,' according to a White House fact sheet. On the surface, it's framed as a solution — but underneath, it represents a troubling expansion of forced institutionalization, with few real answers about long-term care or housing. Trump's recent executive order on homelessness, which prioritizes forced relocation of unhoused people to treatment centers and penalizes open-air encampments, reads more like a campaign tactic than a compassionate or effective public policy. While public frustration around homelessness is understandable, this order channels that frustration in the wrong direction — targeting symptoms instead of causes, and people instead of systems. Framing homelessness as a threat to public safety rather than a humanitarian crisis is not only dangerous — it's inaccurate. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe …' This kind of language paints unhoused people as violent offenders, despite studies — like one from the University of Central Florida — showing that unhoused individuals are typically arrested for nonviolent infractions like public intoxication or shoplifting, not for violent crime. In fact, research shows they are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Trump's approach to homelessness relies on institutionalization, encampment sweeps, and prioritizing states that crack down on outdoor sleeping. But it offers no real investment in building or preserving affordable housing — which experts across the political spectrum agree is the core issue. Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center said it best: 'Trump's expected actions are reckless, expensive, and make homelessness worse. … Real leaders focus on solutions, not on kicking people when they are down.' Supporters of the order argue that it gets people into treatment, but forced treatment rarely leads to long-term recovery — especially when it's divorced from stable housing. Research has consistently shown that Housing First, which prioritizes placing people in permanent housing before mandating treatment or sobriety, reduces homelessness by up to 88 percent and lowers costly emergency care visits. The problem isn't that Housing First failed — it's that we've underfunded and inconsistently applied it across the country. This order also disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities — groups who are already overrepresented in the unhoused population. And in cities like D.C., where Trump is directing federal agencies to evict people from public parks, the move will simply push people out of sight, further away from services and case managers. A few high-profile, tragic incidents involving homeless individuals should not dictate national policy. Fear should not be driving our response to poverty. If we want real results, we need real solutions: housing, mental health access, wraparound services — and most importantly, humanity. Homelessness isn't a crime. And treating it like one won't solve it.
Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Times
How Housing First for the homeless could end rough-sleeping
At the Fabian Society's housing conference last week, the homelessness and prison reform campaigner Matthew Torbitt shared his experience with rough sleeping, which began at 15 when his parents kicked him out. His year on the streets ended when a friend's parents took him in and he has been campaigning to reduce rough sleeping for the past 12 years. On a recent visit to a Housing First centre, a shelter with no strings attached, Torbitt discussed its warm, welcoming atmosphere with a resident. 'It's like a family,' the man said. Both men understood the importance of getting a home without preconditions — a right denied to thousands who are sleeping rough. • Read more expert advice on property, interiors and home improvement Since the pandemic, rough-sleeping rates have doubled, and continue to rise. In February Florence Eshalomi, the chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government committee, called the trend a national shame. Yet despite lamenting the 'all-too-common sight' of rough sleeping in its election manifesto, the government has done little, and its promised homelessness strategy is missing in action. The most puzzling aspect of the government's inaction is the notion that we don't know how to solve this. We do. Housing First is a tried-and-tested policy that flips traditional homelessness strategies on their head. Rather than require people to prove they are sober or employed before they are given shelter, Housing First finds them a tenancy with no strings attached. This is no charity. Recipients pay rent through wages or benefits, while support staff with manageable caseloads tailor assistance to individual requests. Their home is permanent, and recipients aren't shuffled through temporary housing bureaucracies. The results are stupendous. In pilot programmes in England the proportion of recipients without long-term accommodation fell from 86 per cent to 8 per cent, and those sleeping rough fell to zero. There were mental and physical health improvements, and contact with the criminal justice system fell — both as victims and offenders. I covered these benefits in detail last year. The success isn't limited to England. Scotland's Housing First programme maintained 80 per cent of tenancies after two years and had similar positive side effects. Finland, an early pioneer in providing shelter with no preconditions, has reduced long-term homelessness by 72 per cent. Similar successes have been recorded in the US, Canada, Norway and Denmark. • My council left me and my child homeless But for the cash-strapped Treasury, the most persuasive argument could be financial. Councils spent £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation last year, double the amount in 2020, with costs expected to double again by 2027. Add in £3.1 billion in homelessness-related costs, including healthcare and crime, and Britain's most visible injustice also becomes a financial quagmire. Analysis from the Social Market Foundation uses real-world data from England's pilot schemes. We estimate that housing 9,300 people — the peak last autumn — through Housing First would cost £72 million. That is probably an overestimate, since not everyone needs such support, but the costs are outweighed by the returns. An estimated £147 million in savings would be generated through improved wellbeing and reduced pressure on services. Housing First would cost no more than £43 million a year and would yield at least £66 million in savings; that means the government wasting less taxpayer money on inefficient services, while providing a home for those at the sharpest end of the housing crisis. However, dedicated funding is scarce. The money earmarked for Housing First is bundled up in a broader pot covering support for accommodation, prison leavers, immigration and training. This dilutes the resources needed to hire staff or secure tenancies — the foundation of a Housing First strategy. Both Matthew Torbitt and the man he spoke to found safety and dignity in a simple premise: housing without preconditions. The question is why others aren't being offered the same. Gideon Salutin is a senior researcher at the Social Market Foundation think tank
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Government report shows homelessness ‘appears' to be outstripping population growth
The report comes around halfway through this Government's term, which has included tightening emergency housing rules, and social and transitional housing initiatives. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka said although accurate numbers on homelessness were difficult to find, it was 'clear we have a real problem'. 'The Government takes this seriously. All New Zealanders deserve a warm, dry place to stay, and the Government is determined to make progress on this long-running challenge for New Zealand.' Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka says it is clear New Zealand has a real problem with homelessness. Photo / Mark Mitchell Potaka said the Government was seeking advice from officials on further interventions to help rough sleepers, saying 'we are also open to new ideas that will make an enduring difference'. Officials defined homelessness as living situations where people have no way of accessing safe and secure housing. This could include having no shelter at all, living in temporary or uninhabitable accommodation, or staying in a house with others, such as couch surfing. The report estimates people living without shelter are more likely to be older, with more than a quarter aged over 65. Twelve per cent were under 15 years old. Concerns from groups, collated in the report, included people and families sleeping rough, in cars, garages or uninhabitable conditions, or couch surfing during winter. They told researchers there were increasing levels of hopelessness and complex needs because of methamphetamine use, anti-social behaviour and severe mental health concerns. Emergency housing The portion of applications for emergency housing that were declined increased from 4% in March 2024 to 32% in March 2025, the report found. This statistic comes after Potaka's emergency housing policy changes in August 2024, which included limiting discretion and tightening rules to ensure it was only accessed 'where absolutely necessary'. Reasons people were declined included that they could meet their needs another way (34.3%), their circumstances could have been 'reasonably foreseen' (22.5%), they were not eligible for a grant (16.7%) or their situation was not considered an emergency (14.7%). Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the Government has no plan for where people go when they are removed from emergency accommodation. Photo / Mark Mitchell Potaka said more than $550 million was being spent annually across a range of programmes run by multiple agencies, including Transitional Housing, Housing First, Rapid Rehousing and many other support services. The minister argued there was a 37% increase in people living in shelters between 2018 and 2023 when the previous Labour Government was in power and that the Government was also dealing with the large-scale emergency housing 'social disaster' it had inherited from Labour. In January, the Government celebrated reaching its target for reducing the number of people in emergency motels by 75% five years early. But it raised questions over where people went when they left emergency housing. Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka (left) and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon say the Government has spent half a billion dollars helping people in homeless situations. Photo / Mark Mitchell Labour leader Chris Hipkins accused the Government of kicking 'everybody out of emergency accommodation' without having a plan for where they were to go. 'I think every New Zealander living in a main city can walk down the street and see there are more people living on the street, in cars, and that the Government's actions have contributed to that,' he said. 'When you boot everybody out of emergency accommodation ... this is what happens.' The report said for around 14% of people who left emergency housing, officials were not sure where they went. Others went into a mix of social and transitional housing, or received housing support supplements. 'We do know where 85% [of people] have gone and we're really happy that a lot of kids have come out of emergency housing. Those 14% we don't know where they've gone, but they don't have to tell us where they are going,' Potaka said. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told reporters his Government had spent half a billion dollars helping people in these situations. 'Homelessness is a really complex issue. People often come with a complex set of needs, whether its mental health or addiction. No Kiwi wants to see homelessness.' Luxon said he was proud of 'the fact that we have taken 6000 people off the social state housing list'. 'I'm also really proud that we've got 2100 kids out of motels and into really good homes by prioritising those families.' Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.
Miami Herald
10-07-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Thousands of once-homeless Miamians could lose their housing. Here are 5 takeaways
The Trump administration's 2026 budget proposal threatens to drastically cut funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, endangering the stability of thousands of formerly homeless individuals with disabilities. The plan marks a significant shift in federal homelessness policy, moving away from the successful Housing First model to a more treatment-based approach that advocates fear could drive up already record-high homelessness numbers. FULL STORY: 'I would be homeless': 4,100+ disabled Miamians could lose housing under Trump budget Here are the highlights: The proposed budget cuts nearly $33 billion from HUD, eliminating the $3.7 billion Continuum of Care initiative, which funds local homelessness services. This shift could dismantle the Housing First model, which provides stable housing and support services without requiring individuals to resolve underlying issues First has been praised for its effectiveness in reducing homelessness. Critics argue that the new approach, requiring individuals to address personal issues before receiving long-term housing, could keep people on the streets for budget proposal transfers permanent supportive housing money to a short-term housing initiative, which does not subsidize indefinite lodging for formerly homeless people with disabilities. That change may leave many disabled individuals without the necessary time to achieve advocates warn that the financial burden of increased street homelessness will fall on local communities, with higher costs for emergency interventions. Miami-Dade County says it's currently unable to accommodate the population that would be displaced by the federal cuts. The potential loss of housing subsidies for more than 4,000 Miamians raises concerns about a surge in street homelessness. Local leaders express deep concern about the community's future if the proposed budget is enacted, leaving many vulnerable individuals at risk of returning to homelessness. The summary points above were compiled with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in the Miami Herald newsroom. The full story in the link at top was reported, written and edited entirely by Miami Herald journalists.
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Housing First intervention associated with reduced opioid overdoses
Opioid use disorder (OUD) has become a mounting public health crisis in the US, often disproportionately affecting individuals in the most vulnerable socioeconomic statuses. The homeless population has recently shown particularly high rates of OUD and opioid addiction, which has provoked debates over the most effective strategies for treating substance abuse while humanely and equitably promoting public safety in afflicted areas. Among the most controversial approaches is the Housing First philosophy, which posits that providing free or low-cost living accommodations for people experiencing homelessness facilitates addiction treatment, especially if accompanied by pharmacotherapy and mental health counselling. In the June 2025 edition of JAMA Network Open, Isabelle Rao and Margaret Brandeau simulated the effects of Housing First interventions on OUD overdoses and mortality under various conditions. The study concludes that a Housing First approach to OUD patients experiencing homelessness, whether accompanied by treatment or not, leads to a reduction in both overdoses and mortality. GlobalData epidemiologists forecast growth in the 12-month diagnosed prevalent cases of opioid addiction with OUD from over 739,000 to approximately 773,000 between 2025 and 2033. Successful implementation of interventions such as Housing First may reduce severe injury or death in this growing patient pool, particularly among those experiencing housing instability or homelessness. Rao and Brandeau modelled various scenarios in which a nationally representative patient population of 1,000 adults with OUD experiencing homelessness were either provided with free or affordable housing or none over five years. Additionally, these populations were simulated to receive methadone therapy under both housing conditions. As displayed in Figure 1, total overdoses over five years were notably lower among individuals provided with housing, at 464 per 1,000 population in those exposed to the Housing First intervention and 533 in the unexposed group over five years. This pattern was found among both fatal and nonfatal overdoses. Similarly, all-cause mortality simulation showed 132 deaths per 1,000 population among housed OUD patients compared to 186 among those without housing (Figure 2). The authors attribute the lower mortality rate to the significant reduction in fatal overdoses in the housed population. In addition to the improvements in health outcomes for OUD patients provided with housing, the cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that a Housing First policy would be more effective when compared to the status quo due to direct and indirect cost benefits from curbing homelessness and OUD overdoses. The work by Rao and Brandeau offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing polemical debates over homelessness and opioid addiction in the US. As officials seek solutions for the treatment and rehabilitation of individuals suffering from these social and medical conditions, data such as that of the authors is critical in order to guide or refine policy solutions. However, Housing First should be only one component of a wider suite of actions to curb opioid addiction, including education of healthcare providers and patients, enforcement of limitations on irresponsible prescribing habits among physicians, and increasing the availability of life-saving treatments such as naloxone. In the absence of such comprehensive, concerted effort, the opioid crisis will continue to have a sizable impact on countless American communities. "Housing First intervention associated with reduced opioid overdoses" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
