Latest news with #InteragencyCouncilonHomelessness
Forbes
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump Targets Housing First Strategy
The Trump administration appears to be targeting the Housing First strategy; will it matter? The Trump administration has turned its sites on something called the Interagency Council on Homelessness, a small group that works on a policy called Housing First. The move is reported in the New York Times as Trump's Targeting of Homeless Agency Signals Sharp Shift in Policy. That's true, but the change doesn't really come with an alternative. And there is the program and policy, but then there is also the ideological hue of the phrase, 'housing first.' That more broad and political statement is one side of a debate nationally that misses the point; the problem that we call homelessness won't be solved by law enforcement or boot strap grabbing nor will it end when everyone gets an apartment key. The policy called housing first emerged over the last two decades as a mandate to provide immediate shelter and housing for people living unconventionally without requirements. The policy was never exactly harm reduction, which is a more radical approach which includes interventions like providing clean needles for drug injection or 'wet housing,' facilities in which people leaving the streets can drink alcohol. The idea of housing first is a practical one: addiction and mental health issues are key, but they can't be addressed if a person is living on the streets. People who support the agencies work argue that groups like youth and veterans have responded especially well, while those that are critical point to the programs lack of broad success. Just look out the window of any downtown building in any large city, they might say, and you'll see the problem has only gotten worse. While supporters tend to be liberals and critics conservatives, the sorting isn't exactly symmetrical. The Times article points out the policy once had bipartisan support and many homeless advocates are equally frustrated as conservative critics at the lack of success. And apartment key doesn't solve the chronic problems most people face and they end up back on the streets. We've seen the new Trump administration at work. It's only a matter of time before housing first as a policy will be a thing of the past. But one thing is certain, what we call homelessness is complex; it isn't simply a housing problem. I wrote a while back about the solid argument that the problem visible on city streets and even rural communities is highly correlated with cheap and engineered street drugs. In a post called Cheap Drugs, I took a closer look at Sam Quinones's book The Least of Us, a chronical of how drugs have made a longstanding problem of people living outside and on the streets much worse, exacerbating underlying mental health and economic problems. I think he's right. But even if we shut off supply of those drugs immediately, right now, today, those serious mental health issues would persist. And there are other drugs available on the streets as well. The problem of mental health doesn't respond well to law enforcement. The idea of massive enforcement against the drug suppliers is unlikely to yield a sustainable solution unless there is treatment. Critics of housing first often view the problems on the street as ones of personal responsibility and morals rather than marginal rates of substitution; people are choosing to use drugs even at the risk of running into law enforcement and living in improvised shelter. And the shelter system misreads the problem as well. Ironically, many if not most people on the street don't lack shelter. They have tents, abandoned houses, and other improvised living situations. The shelter system offers them the same thing but at a loss of their personal autonomy, often exposing them to risks inside the shelter and limits to who they can bring with them including spouses and pets. I can't say I will mourn the loss of the Interagency Council on Homelessness. There is one in every state and city, a group pulled together often with politicians declaring an 'emergency.' None of these efforts have succeeded. As the problems on the street gain momentum year after year, and more, and more money gets spent, it's about time that federal, state, and local government ignore voices on the left who suggest the problems on the street are purely economic and on the right that want to hold people 'accountable.' Instead, we need better ideas that leverage human capital on the street. When people build encampments, it's a sign of spontaneous order not lawlessness. We ought to be building on people's survival skills, supporting recovery at their speed, and supporting people even who may never recover, but who could suffer less with better access to improvised shelter and consistent case management. Is this what the Trump administration will pursue? I doubt it. But clearing out the housing first mantra might open up the space for more innovative ideas at the local level.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Walters: Newsom's new California homelessness plan leaves out some important details
Let's assume that there's a theoretical problem that needs to be addressed with a plan of action. Logically, such a plan would define the problem, declare what goals must be reached, list actions to reach the goals and, most importantly, identify the necessary logistical and financial tools required. Humankind's many armed conflicts have proven that plans lacking all of those elements often fail. The allied invasion to end Nazi domination of Europe on D-Day, June 6, 1944, is a spectacular example of a meticulously detailed action plan that worked brilliantly. Conversely, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union ultimately failed because its planners underestimated the opposition and failed to account for how the German army could be supplied, particularly during the harsh Russian winter. California's most stubborn crisis, one that looms large in the minds of taxpayers and voters, is the state's worst-in-the-nation level of homelessness. Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislators have spent many billions of dollars on homelessness, but the number of unhoused Californians has continued to rise, approaching 200,000 in the latest count. His administration's latest effort, unveiled this month, is the 'Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness in California 2025–2027.' It was drafted by his Interagency Council on Homelessness, which a year ago was excoriated by the state auditor's office for failing to consistently track and evaluate the state's homelessness spending and 'ensure accountability and results.' The auditor's report undercut Newsom's strenuous efforts to defend his record on homelessness and shift blame for failure to local governments which, he said, hadn't spent state appropriations wisely. In an introduction, Newsom hails the new action plan as 'not just a report of our investments, but a directive for continued accountability and action towards specific quantifiable goals.' Is it? While the plan's 100-plus pages lay out — with great repetition — lofty goals for housing the unhoused and expanding social and medical services to prevent more people from slipping into homelessness, it fails to credibly specify how they will be achieved. One of its stated goals is to 'permit more than 1.5 million homes, with no less than 710,000 of those meeting the needs of low- and very low-income households.' To achieve that in three years, the rate of housing construction would have to increase five-fold, which is not only physically impossible but would require something like $1 trillion in investments from public or private sources. The housing and social and medical services the plan says are needed to effectively end homelessness would cost countless billions of dollars, but the plan doesn't put price tags on its goals or actions to achieve them. Nor does it lay out how any of the money would be raised when the state faces chronic multibillion-dollar budget deficits. A day after the plan was released on March 12, the California State Association of Counties issued a lengthy white paper that didn't mention it specifically but nevertheless cited 'critical flaws in our current broken system' and called for 'smart policy solutions to address them.' The paper lamented that 'no single entity is explicitly responsible for ensuring individuals experiencing homelessness receive shelter, mental health care, or transitional housing.' It also appeared to criticize Newsom, although not by name, for refusing to provide a dedicated stream of state aid to finance long-term homelessness efforts. Providing only annual grants, it said, 'creates uncertainty, making it difficult for local governments to plan and sustain effective programs.' Unfortunately, homelessness is not an isolated case of launching big projects without fully developed plans. The haphazard and sometimes failed attempts to incorporate digital information into state government services is one, and the much troubled bullet train project is another. CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California's state Capitol works and why it matters. This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Walters: Newsom's new homelessness plan leaves out key details
Boston Globe
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Why are hundreds of people living outside in Rhode Island?
We claim it's because they have substance use disorders, mental illness, or like to camp out so they don't have to pay rent. In fact, most people with substance use disorders or behavioral health issues have housing. And few people like to camp out in subfreezing temperatures. The actual reason for homelessness is the Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Adult homeless shelter clients are Advertisement How many people are living outside? We conduct a comprehensive Advertisement These huge increases were largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced a reduction in the number of shelters to limit the spread of the virus, and also made it dangerous for people to remain 'doubled up' with friends and family. The pandemic's economic impact led to a greater number of evictions. And while the federal government implemented measures such as an eviction moratorium, rent relief, and cash payments, these were temporary and once they ended in 2022, evictions rose to Our homeless service system has been unable to handle this increase. The main problem is that our ability to place very low-income households in housing has depended primarily on federally subsidized Housing Choice Vouchers. They require the recipient to find a private landlord who rejects stereotypes about people experiencing homelessness, and is willing to have an inspection and accept a rent that is often below market rate. In a hot rental market, these conditions are rarely met. And if we can't place enough people in housing, our emergency shelters fill up and we don't have sufficient vacant beds to meet the need. It is not only the homeless service system that has failed, it is also Rhode Island's housing production system. Rhode Island ranked Advertisement We must take full advantage of Rhode Island's new Department of Housing. Under former secretary of housing Stefan Pryor, we made important gains by increasing the number of shelter beds, acquiring the The portable Housing Choice Voucher program requiring private landlords to accept vouchers is no longer a viable solution for those currently experiencing homelessness. We must create a Advertisement Finally, we must fully staff the Department of Housing and the Interagency Council on Homelessness, and make sure we have the leadership in place to deliver on a plan to end long-term homelessness in Rhode Island. Providence College Professor is chair of the R.I. Homeless Management Information System Steering Committee, and the interim director of the R.I. Homeless Advocacy Project. The views expressed here are his and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization.
USA Today
11-02-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Walters: Will having ‘too many cooks' complicate recovery from deadly Los Angeles fires?
Dan Walters CalMatters Commentary A proverb said to have arisen in 16th-century England postulates that 'too many cooks spoil the broth.' When too many people are working on a project without clear accountability, it may produce a shoddy outcome. In fact, research conducted at Princeton University 11 years ago appears to validate this. Iain Couzin, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and the study's senior author, said it undercuts the so-called 'wisdom-of-crowds' theory that champions multiple inputs. 'It's a starting point that opens up the possibility of capturing collective decision-making in a more realistic environment,' Couzin said in a statement at the time. 'When we do see small groups of animals or organisms making decisions they are not necessarily compromising accuracy. They might actually do worse if more individuals were involved. I think that's the new insight.' Examples of spoiled broth abound in the political realm, but a very obvious and current example is California's haphazard approach to its worst-in-the-nation homelessness crisis. Multiple state agencies, cities and counties all deal with aspects of the situation. Despite an estimated $24 billion expended since Gavin Newsom became governor in 2019, the number of homeless people in California has continued to rise and the state auditor has found that Newsom's Interagency Council on Homelessness, which was supposed to coordinate state efforts, had failed to do so. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. Local homelessness efforts have also suffered from a lack of clear responsibility with city and county officials pointing fingers at each other. What's happening or not on homelessness is a warning that a new crisis — recovery from the highly destructive and deadly wildfires that swept through Los Angeles — could be botched. On Monday, UCLA's Anderson School of Management estimated property losses of between $95 billion and $164 billion, and other estimates range as high as $250 billion. The tasks of cleaning up, financing and rebuilding schools and other public infrastructure, as well as thousands of homes and commercial structures, are almost unfathomably difficult. As the fires were finally tamed, political figures such as Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and local civic leaders and organizations began raising money and proposing pathways for recovery operations. However, as the Los Angeles Times has reported, the plethora of recovery organizations makes it difficult to determine who's really in charge, a lack of clarity compounded by fires having struck both neighborhoods within the city limits, such as Pacific Palisades, and those governed by the county, such as Altadena. The recovery response got off to a bad start when Bass appointed Steve Soboroff, a prominent civic leader, as her recovery czar only to face backlash about being paid $500,000 for a few months' work. He ultimately agreed to work for free, but the flap implied that decisions were being made without being fully vetted. Meanwhile, Rick Caruso, another civic leader whom Bass defeated to become mayor, has announced his own recovery effort, sparked by losses suffered by members of his family, and has sharply criticized Bass, who faces a reelection campaign next year. Newsom has spent many days visibly monitoring firefighting efforts, getting a $2.5 billion allocation from the Legislature and seeking federal funds from President Donald Trump, a longtime political foil. However, just after making a quick trip to Washington to bolster requests for money, Newsom signed legislation appropriating millions of dollars to battle Trump in court over other issues, most prominently immigration. Newsom also issued a decree waiving regulations to allow homeowners to rebuild their homes, even in neighborhoods shown to be prone to destruction in previous fires. Historians will see the fires that blackened much of Los Angeles this year as one of the state's most significant events and how recovery is managed, or mismanaged, will be legend. CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California's state Capitol works and why it matters.
