X11.16.2019 - Is It Possible to End Homelessness? Part Three
This is the third installment of a trilogy dealing with housing and homelessness in North America. In this final blog, I ask the question, “Is It Possible to End Homelessness?”. In answering this question, it may sound at times that I am being critical of the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to ending homelessness and that is not my intent. In fact, I know that they have saved countless people from injury, death or living in limbo without a place to call home. But I do question whether there are better ways to end homelessness.
In Canada, 35,000 people experience homelessness on any given night and 235,000 people are homeless over a one-year period. In the United States, there are 553,742 people experiencing homelessness on any given night or 17 people for every 10,000 people in the general population. At the time of writing, the number of people experiencing homelessness in the United States has increased for the third straight year. The magnitude and cost of this social issue is staggering and, yet, there are signs of progress to reduce or even end homelessness — with some qualifiers.
Since the 1990s when I became involved as a consultant in housing and homelessness, there have been some notable breakthroughs. Women experiencing domestic violence, youth and veterans have all been prioritized on housing waitlists and for receiving tailored supports through community agencies. In fact, the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Alliance to End Homelessness in the United States have specifically targeted veteran homelessness and CAEH recently received government funding to help make that happen. Several communities in both countries have even declared a state of functional zero for ending chronic homelessness — people who have experienced homelessness for a year or had three or more episodes of homelessness in 12 months.
Through its first National Housing Strategy, Canada has committed $5.75 billion over eight years to building, restoring and revitalizing housing across the country. That seems like a big chunk of money (and it is) until it’s compared to the $30 billion that the country invests in social service agencies to deal with the complex issues of homelessness that range from poverty, to mental illness and addiction, to domestic violence, to gender identity, to health and childhood trauma. BTW, poverty is the critical factor and will continue to be part of the equation until housing stability is achieved. There is good news on that front, as well, because preventing homelessness is the ideal, proactive tool to achieve housing affordability and there is a new Canada-Ontario initiative that will add $3,000 annually to households that are precariously housed due to limited financial resources.
Reconciling the return on investment for the $30 billion that is invested through social service agencies annually is the next challenge. The metrics for funding must be focused on how many people experiencing homelessness were able to secure safe, adequate and affordable housing as a direct result of the agency funding and how long did it take to make that happen. What was the ROI? How much does it really cost to permanently house and support a person or a family and have them experience housing stability? We know that the experience of homelessness is life threatening — literally and figuratively — and it does not get better with time.
Plato may have asked, “Does a homeless person exist if one doesn’t see them?” If the answer is in the affirmative and the homeless person exists, Plato may have asked how this unfortunate person’s homeless state occurred — a stoic question of causality. By using our omniscient superpowers, we could attribute many different factors building on the previous list: family breakup, being queer, alcohol, drugs, gambling, mental health, bankruptcy, physical disability, job loss, veteran PTSD, ex-convict, bad luck or any combination thereof. But, at the end of this philosophical exercise, who cares — especially if all you have to do is look away?
Earlier, I mentioned that poverty is the common factor that overrides all of the other, contributing issues related to the experience of homelessness. If people have housing stability — which means spending 30% or less of their income on housing and utilities — they can better deal with the contributing factors that led or could lead to being homeless. That is the underlying premise for “housing first” as the guiding principle (and proven best practice) for ending homelessness. But there is still one formidable obstacle to sustaining permanent housing.
We are living in a new Gilded Age similar to the one that occurred at the turn of the 20th century when Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ demonstrated how a free market operates when it reaches peak performance. Income inequality is the predictable outcome from monopolies and concentrated political power. The global economy now operates on a foundation of consumerism and a large segment of society has slipped into survival mode financially. Smith reasoned that the rich would offset this inequality through their interest in the wellbeing of society in general, e.g., philanthropy and a social conscience backed up by their altruistic investment in the community. Some moguls used Social Darwinism to justify the inequality between the economic classes. The theory presumes that the “fittest” humans are the most successful and that poor people are destitute because they are weak and lack the skills to be prosperous. Nonsense!
Housing is a human right. The United Nations and governments around the world have acknowledged this fact. And, as a Canadian, I’m proud to say that Canada has partnered with its 10 provinces and three territories to make the country stronger through investment in housing. But that is not enough. Social service agencies that are funded for homelessness services need to close the time gap between first contact with people experiencing homelessness and helping them secure housing — and this needs to be measured with funding contingent on making it happen. The agencies are part of the first responder network and housing is the only solution to homelessness. If social service agencies are only focused on soothing the symptoms of homelessness through food, clothing, emergency shelter, etc. (albeit well-intentioned), they need to partner with housing-focused agencies or hire the housing expertise to close the time gap between homelessness, precarious housing and housing stability.
People who are working full-time or if they have several jobs to make ends meet may be finding it difficult to live by the 30% rule for their housing spend. Under those circumstances, you can consider taking in a roommate, reducing your monthly housing outlay and saving some money. It may seem like owning a home is not even worth considering. This is when you can use the capitalist system to your benefit. Markets must grow or die. That includes financial markets and, specifically, the mortgage market. If you are employed but still unable to gain entry to the housing market, consider partnering with a family member, good friend or somebody interested in a housing investment and make a joint application for a mortgage with an underlying, legally vetted, partnership agreement based upon shares. These “tranches” of shares increase in value as the home’s equity grows and, as such, your shareholder equity will grow over time. You can sell your shares or acquire another person’s shares, or everyone can agree to sell your home. The latter option could mean a larger down payment for a different, affordable home.
Understanding the root causes of homelessness and the impact of income inequality is important but it’s no substitute for having enough affordable housing inventory. The money is starting to flow into communities in Canada to build new affordable housing and revitalize social housing. Realigning the funding to social service agencies so that they are connected to stable housing outcomes is essential. Finally, there needs to be a national key performance indicator (KPI) for all housing and homelessness activities. I suggest that we start with the following KPI for years one and two in any agency or community housing provider: no Canadian without a home for longer than 90 days. In years three and four, adjust the KPI to 60 days and in year five onwards, no person or family in Canada should experience homelessness for longer than 30 days. In that way, functional zero is achieved and we can determine how much time, effort and money is required nationally to achieve and sustain housing stability across Canada.
It is possible to end homelessness.