Conclusion from an insightful debate regarding Austin Homeless situation

Recently, I had the chance to participate in a public discussion regarding homelessness, a social problem very present in United States.

When I first came in USA 4 years ago, the overwhelming number of people leaving on the street shook me. It took me some time to comprehend and integrate this reality. During Covid time, downtown Austin was occupied by multiple tents. A new community was emerging in contrast with the lavish lifestyle of the city. Austinites were faced with a difficult conundrum: sweep the tents away and recover their beautiful city, or care more for the less fortunate people and allow them to camp in public areas. In 2021, 57% of Austin’s residents voted in favor of reinstating penalties for camping in public spaces.

As I came to understand after the discussion organized by Texas Public Policy Foundation, things are more complex than what one can see at a first glance. And it has to do with policies, or better said, with different standpoints on the matter.

Housing First Approach

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expanded at a larger scale the Housing First Approach. A policy originally designed for a narrow segment of the homeless population. Defined as “permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to enter, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements”, this approach became the nation’s one-size-fits-all to homelessness. (according to the Study written by Michele Steeb, senior fellow with the Texas Public Foundation)

In other words, the policy states that the main problem in “homeless” is home, thus focusing only on building houses. But despite of a 42.7% increase in the number of permanent housing units dedicated to the homeless during 2014-2019, the unsheltered population rose by 20.5%[1].

Critics

Critics of this policy suggest that allocation of life-long sponsored housing serves to “straitjacket” them into the condition under which they entered homelessness. As there is no expectation to address the behaviors that led their homelessness, nor to do more with their lives. (Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2020). In a way, this goes along the lines of the proverb: “Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime”.

Community First Approach

Therefore, those who argue against the Housing First solution, advocate for a more comprehensive alternative. Community First Approach takes into consideration more aspects of the problem, like the underlying trauma and disease that afflict those struggling with homelessness. Besides the shelter need, this policy advocates for providing services to help individuals address and heal those issues. In such manner that they, and the community they reside in, can begin to realize their full potential.

According to USICH [2], many programs such as Saint John’s Program for Real Change in Sacramento and Haven for Hope in San Antonio have demonstrated that with the proper intervention and incentives, these conditions can be successfully treated and managed, allowing them to work and move forward, if not, achieve self-sustainability.

Critics

Nevertheless, approaches that emphasize employment, empowerment and increasing self-sufficiency come with preconditions and regulations. Camping is permitted only in designated places. Many regulated campuses offer recovery-oriented services, like short-term residential housing on-campus, substance abuse and mental health treatment, life-skills training, legal services and more. But the beneficiaries need to attend and comply with the guidelines in order to receive help. The system supports people as they move towards self-sufficiency and eventually exit the program. Housing and employment privileges are available depending on the individual’s capacity to overcome their previous condition and (re)integrate in society.

Some voices opposing this approach believe preconditions are unfair. Regulations add extra pressure on individuals already hit hard by life.

Final Words

Certainly, these ideas represent just the tip of the iceberg of a very complicated and nuanced dilemma. One that is yet to be solved. Till then, the people in the street teach us, each day, an important lesson about survival and resilience in dire conditions.

And we remain with the question: Does homeless imply only the lack of a house? Or is there more to the meaning of “home” than just a house?

What do you think?

[1] HUD’s 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR; HUD, 2020a) in  “Homelessness, What is Fueling the US Crisis” by Michele Steeb.

[2] United States Interagency Council of Homelessness (2020). Expanding the toolbox: The whole of Government Response to Homelessness. Retrieved from https.://texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/USICH-2020-report401.pdf