Ordinance to make camping in the city illegal will harm efforts to assist unhoused residents.

 Mayor Misty Buscher and the Springfield City Council

Springfield City Hall

800 East Monroe

Springfield, IL 62701

September 25, 2024

Dear Mayor Misty Buscher and Members of the Springfield City Council,

I am pleased to hear that Ordinance 2024-376 was withdrawn from consideration after backlash from local advocacy groups and community members. For context, this ordinance gives police and city legal authorities the power to enforce 24-hour removal orders and jail, fees, or penalties if a person has not gone. Many raised the issue that this is not an effective way to solve or prevent homelessness. Within the community, there are many successful ways to address homelessness.

There are many organizations that provide support needed such as Heartland HOUSED, Helping Hands, and many different sheltering and food services. With support, people can spend time with resources eventually being able to work again and find themselves in housing. To meet homeless people with more negativity and fees, it would further the cycle of poverty and life on the street. The systemic issue of homelessness must be addressed with support and resources as they have lost their ability and access to these necessities. The ordinance that had been pushed for vote would effectively strip the homeless community from vital resources and services.

This ordinance not only reverses progress made on the the plan to end homelessness, but it also makes public services and places seem unavailable or inaccessible. When we tell police officers to remove homeless people from an area and jail/fine them if they have not gone, we create a threatening relationship between the city’s public services and spaces and the people who are living unhoused. There is no restriction or limit on how far the area of removal can be. The ordinance can illegally remove a human’s right to public property and services. It can also influence homeless people to stay away from certain areas, and therefore prevent them from accessing essential resources such as housing, food, and job opportunities. There could also lead to a general distrust of public service workers due to these negative interactions with police.

With all the control over this population within the community, there can become a general distrust of public service workers. This could include the people out in the community trying to help them. Many factors could now influence the homeless population from avoiding the help to get out of this cycle. Without plan for alternative accommodation and placement, this ordinance would undo the progression done for homeless community. Criminalization does not solve the issue as they cannot suddenly be a person with a home. 

There is a thought that homeless people do not want to work or do not want to live in a home. This perpetuates the stigma surrounding homelessness and that there should be no support provided. Unfortunately, it does not work like that. A home requires money, which requires an address and stable resources such hygiene facilities. There is no easy answer to solve homelessness. The continuation of resources and services can help bridge that gap. They may be able to get one a job without an address or aid with shelter while going through these other steps. 

Overall, passing an ordinance to criminalize homelessness would have far more negative effects than positive on the surrounding community. Homelessness should be met with support and a proactive approach. More should be done to provide a solution for homelessness within the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, 

[Student name]

It is a good habit to congratulate politicians and officials when they do something we approve of.  In the case of ordinances to help law enforcement remove unhoused people from camping or sleeping on sidewalks, benches, and so forth, there seem to be two motives.  One motive is simply to remove the homeless persons from areas were their mere presence annoys or intimidates people.  People just want them removed.  The second motive seems to be a belief that if police have coercive power to push unhoused people into services, this will help some of them get on track to find permanent housing and get assistance with addictions or mental health problems they are having. The second motive is well-intentioned, but research on the topic gives us reason to doubt it's effective utility.

Perhaps this is a case where we can agree with people who want to move unhoused people away from areas where their unsightly presence offends sensibilities.  But, rather than be disgusted with the people who are experiencing homelessness, and desiring their removal to places where they cannot be seen, we are disgusted with the fact that our society—rich as it is—tolerates circumstances that drive people into situations where they become unhoused. We would like unhoused persons removed from sleeping quarters on sidewalks and in campgrounds in parking lots or empty lots and placed in permanent housing.  Then, if they want to hang out in parks and outdoor locations to give some life to the streets of our city, so much the better, but let the have their own space protected from the elements where they can sleep.

You are quite right to suggest that we need to encourage a relationship between law enforcement and unhoused persons that fosters trust and respect, and defaulting to the coercive threats of law enforcement is unlikely to achieve this.  In fact, you really are proposing a model where law enforcement can become the ally of the homeless, helping the find safe places to shelter and services to gain access to permanent housing as well as mental health treatment or addition treatment. Friendly and cooperative relationships where law enforcement personnel are perceived as well-intentioned and empathic persons who want to help protect citizens will probably be more effective than encouraging police to rely on their monopoly on the use of force to threaten and intimidate people.

I think it would suffice to say that most homeless persons would gladly get out of their unhoused condition and be delighted to take occupancy in any modest apartment or home where they could store their belongings, enjoy sleeping in their own bed each night, and cook their own meals and take showers or bathe whenever they liked.  It is right to suggest that we focus on such solutions, and not let ourselves become distracted by false solutions that would only work to hide the problem, rather than actually solving it.

Mayvb

Allow construction of dense housing in the city to make homes affordable

 Dear Mayor Misty Buscher,

My name is ________. I am an undergraduate student attending the University of Illinois Springfield, where I am a senior studying social work. Living on campus, I have learned much about life in Springfield, and there is one problem that is common in this city that I would like to address: homelessness. I am writing to you advocating against a major policy in Springfield that is perpetuating this problem in this city. This policy is code § 151.10 in Springfield's Code of Ordinances Title XV.

According to the Springfield & Sangamon County’s 2022-2028 Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness report, about 260 people experienced homelessness in Springfield at any point during 2022. I have been fortunate enough to have a roof over my head my entire life so far, but I have talked to a few people that have experienced homelessness and have read many gut wrenching stories of those experiencing homelessness in my social work classes and local newspapers.

Many of these individuals are suffering from serious illnesses. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 20.8% of Illinois homeless people reported that they were enduring a serious mental illness and 10.9% of them had chronic substance abuse conditions in 2023. HUD also found that homeless are three to six times more likely to have conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS. These illnesses often are the central reasons why these individuals are homeless, as there were not proper community services available for them to build themselves up into contributing members of society. They

also might not have had funds for their treatments and for the other financial responsibilities they face, such as rent, bills, food and paying for their childrens’ needs and wants. The combination of these financial and other responsibilities, plus their ailments, plus the lack of services needed to keep up with their responsibilities and ailments can greatly increase a person’s chances in becoming homeless.

Springfield has had many successful efforts to reduce homelessness to Springfield. One of these efforts include Springfield & Sangamon County’s 2022-2028 Strategic Plan to Address Homelessness. In this plan, Heartland HOUSED, Heartland Continuum of Care, Capital Township, the city of Springfield, Sangamon County, and many other agencies have come together to create new affordable housing that include systems of support and resources for people experiencing homelessness in Springfield. Another example would be your and Ward 5 Alderman Lakeisha Purchase’s withdrawal of ordinance 2024-376, which would have allowed Springfield police to fine people for public camping along with taking people’s possessions after not moving after a 24-hour notice.

The HUD provided Heartland Continuum of Care funds to create 142 new affordable housing units for these people. I strongly suggest combining the Heartland HOUSED project and BUILD Springfield’s efforts to improve and maintain a sustainable city that can build up the people it swears to protect. One of BUILD Springfield’s goals is “community building” and working with major community organizations to make huge strides to prevent and reduce homelessness would align with this goal.

However, ordinance § 151.10 from Springfield's Code of Ordinances Title XV limits the necessary construction to create affordable housing for these individuals, along with construction to expand Springfield’s population. Under this ordinance, “the aggregate residential densities within a planned unit development shall not exceed 35 persons per acre of the net development area.” In essence, this rule prevents high rise buildings from being constructed in Springfield, IL. By amending or getting rid of this rule, the construction of high rise buildings for apartments can occur, meaning more affordable housing construction could be done for those in need of it. In addition, high rise apartments in Springfield can attract more people to live in Springfield, which would be good for the city’s economy.

Overall, I appreciate your efforts in listening to my and the rest of your constituents' information and suggestions regarding the topic of homelessness in Springfield.

References

Bandoch, J., & Tabor, Joe (2024). Regulatory reform can make housing more affordable for Illinois families. Illinois Policy.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/regulatory-reform-can-make-housing-more-afforda ble-for-illinois-families/.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2023). Health and homelessness. Retrieved September 20, 2024, from

https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/health/.

Springfield, Illinois, Municipal Code § 151.10.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2023). HUD 2023 continuum of care homeless assistance programs homeless populations and subpopulations in Illinois. https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_State_IL_2023.pdf.

            It’s a good letter, and you get right to the point, mention a specific problem, and give specific suggestions to the mayor, who does have some ability to get the ordinance repealed.  I might have followed your excellent opening paragraph with something close to your penultimate paragraph, explaining that the ordinance limits the density of housing construction. So, in essence, the main thrust of the letter would become a please for a change in ordinances that would allow construction of apartment building complexes that would make population density higher than it is now in some areas of town.  

            After you've made high density construction of apartment buildings the main focus, you could open the justification by describing the lack of affordable housing and the need for affordable housing, and then throw in some facts about the cost-per-unit of housing construction being much lower if people build denser housing development such as apartment buildings.  Your point would be that dense housing allows for more affordable housing, and increasing the supply of affordable housing is a preventative measure to avoid increasing the numbers of persons who are housing insecure or actually unhoused.

            I think you might also want to point out that we know that packing low-income persons or persons with mental health problems together into single neighborhoods is not good, and such persons ought to be dispersed around the community. To that end, you might point out that having new construction of dense housing development with 50-100 units in a few places around the city would allow a smaller percentage of residents in such buildings to be people transitioning out of a state of homelessness or needing permanent supportive housing.  That is, if we had six or seven such developments, providing 400 to 500 more housing units, we would only need to make 40 to 50 of them “supportive housing” units, a similar number of them rapid rehousing units, and that would leave 80% of the units available as a mix of market-rate (larger and more luxurious) and affordable (smaller and more basic but eligible for housing choice vouchers or social housing) so that the complexes would not become places of concentrated poverty.   I think you need to make this point because people may be aware of the disastrous social consequences of concentrating persons with low skills and low income into dense housing systems. 

            I think you might also mention research on the profitability and economic advantages to the public of dense housing, and also share some points about the fact that a certain percentage of the population is attracted to living in more densely populated areas (not everyone wants a single detached house). You would find information about this from various urban planning and architecture think-tanks, Youtube channels, and websites (check out Strong Towns). 

              Your letter goes into some detail about how serious health problems are a contributing factor to people becoming unhoused. To me, this suggests that you are making a point about the inevitable problem that some people will fall into addiction or become afflicted with a chronic disease, and society needs to prepare for this by creating a certain percentage of housing stock that is not available as a commodity to be purchased in a free market, but rather, provided as a human right so that all citizens can be secure in their shelter and basic standard of living. Estimates of what percentage of all housing should be provided as social housing or public housing vary from 5% to 35%, but some amount of housing units in Springfield ought to be available for persons who can't pay market rents, either temporarily or indefinitely, and changing an ordinance to allow construction of dense housing will make it easier to create such units.

You might also mention racial housing segregation, and perhaps point out the differences in incomes, poverty rates, and wealth accumulation by ethnicity/race in the United States (or even Springfield, if you can get that census information). Then you could site research that suggests a main contributing factor to persisting racial segregation in the Midwest is the continued existence of zoning ordinances that restrict multi-family housing in certain areas. Such policies preserve the asset values of persons who are already wealthier (European-Americans and Asian-Americans) and decrease the ability of persons who are poorer (Blacks and Hispanics) to gain access to better schools, better jobs, and home ownership. 

You might also mention environmental advantages of providing denser housing options.  

You might suggest a master plan for the future of Springfield to make it a more walkable and sustainable city, where 20% of all housing stock is concentrated in dense core areas, 30% is in denser areas of mixed detached housing and multi-family housing construction, 30 % is in medium-density neighborhoods of single, detached housing with scattered multi-family structures, and 20% is in low-density neighborhoods with larger yards and mostly single, detached housing with only a very few multi-family structures. Currently almost nothing in Springfield is concentrated dense core area housing, so stop issuing permits for more urban sprawl and build up the denser housing to create a more sustainable mix of housing and neighborhood types. 

            

            

Student suggests raising revenue to end homelessness by increasing taxes on gaming

 The honorable J.B. Pritzker 401 S. Spring St.

Springfield, IL 62704

February 29^th, 2024

Dear Governor Pritker,

My name is [_Student_]. I am a senior at the University of Illinois Springfield, in the Bachelor of Social Work program. I am currently taking a social welfare and policies course that is shining some light on the detail of how the legislation effects policies in social work. I want to thank you for signing House Bill 2831 (the HOME IL Bill you signed on July 26th of last year). I appreciate your continued support support in advocating for the unhoused population and our goal to end homelessness in the state of Illinois.

I watched your budget speech, and appreciate many of your ideas, including raising the tax on wagers placed at sports books. I wonder though, why are we not also raising the taxes on all gambling types? Being new to Illinois, the first thing I noticed right away is there are gaming areas in almost all of the gas stations, restaurants, and bars. As an advocate for mental health and addiction prevention I don’t understand the need for these facilities at all. However, if they must exist I do believe they need to be heavily taxed right along with the alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana industries. These taxed sources alone will provide enough funds to increase the budgets necessary to be able to end homelessness in Illinois.

I noticed that a recent (2023 report on 2022 revenue) report from the Illinois Gaming Board reported about $1.8 billion to the state from gambling, and I read that recently (in the past few months) you have suggested raising the taxes on gaming wins from 15% to 35% to raise another $200 million in state revenue. 

By my calculations, providing emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, caseworkers, mental health and addiction counseling workers, and coordinators to work with landlords and nonprofit housing development corporations, the state could functionally end homelessness with an expenditure of less than $500 million, if it was spent on the most effective types of services using efficient housing-first approaches. Not all of that money would need to come from the state, as the federal government and local governments as well as private philanthropy all have roles to play.  Remember also that the $500 million needed to end homelessness is not just money for housing, it’s also money for a system of community mental health care, support, and addiction & recovery counseling. And, we don’t need $500 million in new spending, we just need additional spending to bring total efforts to about $500 million, which is, by my rough approximate estimate, about $200 million.  

Springfield currently has a great model of permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing programs. Helping Hands of Springfield recently expanded and are achieving great things in the area. Springfield is moving toward ending functional homelessness, following a pattern set by Rockford, Illinois. The rest of the state needs this type of program to be able to achieve the goal of ending homelessness all together in the state. In order to tackle homelessness and maintain a proper prevention level, I believe we need to greatly expand in this direction. Adding in a robust team of professionals to follow the individual through their journey and provide guidance. This will not only bring the individuals off the streets, but also help in the prevention of their becoming homeless again. This team should consist of medical professionals, social workers, intensive case managers, legal representatives and a interdisciplinary team that looks at each individual’s specific needs.

One option many people will suggest is to turn an old building into a housing unit to provide housing for those experiencing homelessness and be “done with it”. You can see that sort of thinking with the slogan of the Poor Peoples Campaign (“The USA has 5 vacant houses for every homeless person”). Having one large facility with multiple unhoused individuals being permanently placed together is not a great solution. In fact, the most significant caution about permanent supportive housing is that for the program to work, persons who need permanent support must be distributed around a community, and not concentrated in confined neighborhoods. The main reason is that many of these individuals are suffering from a great level of mental illness, physical disabilities, and substance use disorders. While aiming for recovery, a group setting of individuals without monitoring is a recipe for failure. These individuals need the assistance and guidance to be able to achieve life long stable housing, and they need housing distributed around communities so that they can interact in friendly ways with many persons who are not suffering from addiction, depression, or psychotic illnesses. 

In conclusion, I’m urging you to redouble the efforts you and the General Assembly have already made with the HOME IL bill of 2023, and follow through on your proposal to raise taxes on gambling profits and winnings.  Use the $200 million in additional revenue our state generates from the increased public capture of profits and winnings from gambling to end homelessness, and in so doing, set up Illinois as a model for the nation, where gaps in mental health services, drug addiction treatment, and housing policies have been filled and the citizens of Illinois can live in a state where the 25th Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is respected and implemented.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 

How to Help the Homeless

 There are many homeless people around the Springfield area. According to a WICS report, at one given time there are at least 271 homeless people in Springfield. [the January 2020 point-in-time census of persons living in emergency/transitional shelter and unsheltered counted 294 homeless persons in Sangamon County]  It seems that at almost every major intersection there is an individual a sign asking for help. I will sometimes give cash but it is not something I can do every time. So I did some research to see what other things can be done to help those experiencing homelessness without giving money all the time. I found there are several different ways we can help. The number one thing we can do as a community is contact our legislatures and demand that they do something to help the homeless.  There is no reason we should have any homeless people. I myself am not sure what the answer is but there has to be something we can all do. There are many buildings and homes just sitting empty that we should somehow be able to utilize to provide temporary housing to individuals.  Most would rather not be homeless and for some reason or another have fallen upon hard times and need help temporarily. Until something is done to help the homeless get back on their feet there are several more things we can do as community members to help make their life a little easier.

• Smile, make eye contact and talk to them and get to know them and their story. Human contact is one of the most basic needs that we all need and can give. They might just want someone to talk to.
• Offer to help in anyway you can. Offer food, water, personal items and if needed, cash. We really don’t know someone else’s story and they know what they need at the moment.
• Call the Homeless Hotline if there is one available. In Springfield you can contact Ministries Emergency Shelter at 217-753-3939. There are several others too. 
• If the person appears to be in distress see if you can get them an ambulance
• Educate yourself on the homeless.

[To learn about what you can do, and follow the homelessness issue in Springfield, I recommend the website of the Heartland Continuum of Care at https://heartlandcontinuum.com/]

Something I am going to do is start carrying bags with me that has personal items in it, a list of shelters in Springfield and a small gift card to a restaurant where they can get a meal. 

Helping the current homeless population would only be the beginning, we also need to prevent it from  continuing to happen. We need to have services in place that are available to anyone before they become homeless.  Some of those services would be:

• Have affordable housing available to provide to someone that will become homeless
• Have other services available such as job training, provided daycare so parents can actively look for work
• Intervention/Prevention programs to help financially 

The homeless population is growing and will continue to grow in the future for different reason. Many people have lost their jobs due to the pandemic, businesses have closed and people can’t  afford to pay their house payment or rent. We have to do something.  We live in a country that is rich in resources and we should be able to provide affordable housing so no one has to be homeless. 

This is a great reaction essay with a sharp focus on a single issue and an orientation toward solutions.  

The coordinator of the Heartland Continuum of Care was recently asked what would be most helpful, and he was also asked what is preventing us from solving the problem, since we do know how to solve the homelessness problem, as you have outlined in your reaction essay.  He said we lack resources.  Specifically, to move to a housing-first model for everyone, and a permanent supportive housing model for those who need that (which is probably all homeless persons with substance addictions or mental illnesses or co-morbid conditions, which is probably about 40% of all who become homeless in a year, and probably well over half of all who are homeless at any given point-in-time).  In either case, we need housing units where we can permanently place people, and we don't have enough of those.  The Landlord Association is willing to work with the Heartland Continuum of Care and make many units available, but we need more, and once those units are available, we need the money to pay the rent for those places. Could churches, the city government, the current homeless shelters (Helping Hands, Contact Ministries, Inner City mission, etc.) take on new roles as "landlords" for persons in permanent supportive housing or just supportive housing?  In any event, the point is that we do not have the resource: neither do we have funds to provide the rents or acquire the properties we need to house all the homeless, nor do we have the funding to pay the salaries of the persons who would provide wrap-around support and sobriety support and mental health services, or those who would coordinate the volunteers, who would be checking in with people in permanent supportive housing. 

The implication is that we ought to:

Push the city government and the 20+ entities in the Heartland Continuum of Care and the local religious congregations that help support the various services for the homeless to unify in applications for city, state, and federal aid to help us get the resources to supply housing and services for permanent supportive housing.

Support the efforts of Mayor Langfelder and the City Council to allocate more money to addressing the problems of Springfield residents who lack housing. 

Give money to whatever entity is collecting all the resources and coordinating the project of getting all this housing available, and to the services and shelters that currently feed and house the homeless when they run out of their SNAP benefits or monthly assistance—if they even receive those benefits (e.g., St. John's Breadline, Fifth Street Renaissance, the Salvation Army, Helping Hands, Contact Ministries, Inner City Mission, Central Illinois Food Bank, etc.).

Advocate for things that will prevent homelessness:
 affordable housing, 
more housing choice vouchers, 
rules forcing landlords to accept clients who use housing choice vouchers, 
more public housing units, 
more state-or-city equivalents of the federal public housing program, 
more subsidies and laws (especially zoning law modifications) that would create more affordable housing and land trusts, and distribute such housing equitably around a metropolitan area. 

Promote an understanding of housing as a human right.

Promote an understanding that it probably saves money (for hospital emergency rooms, local business owners, police departments, local jails) if persons experiencing homelessness are housed in permanent housing rather than put in transitional or emergency shelters, or left unsheltered.  Since the costs of police and local businesses and local hospitals are passed on to all of us in higher taxes and higher insurance premiums and higher prices in stores, we're paying for homelessness either way, and it just makes more sense to take care of this issue in the way that costs the least (providing permanent housing to everyone) while also meeting our obligations to see that everyone's human rights are protected.

As for the panhandlers, I would never give them money.  If someone comes to me and asks for help, I would usually refer them to Fifth Street Renaissance for breakfast and St. John's Breadline for lunch. Men could seek housing at the Helping Hands shelter or the Warming Shelter (in winter), and women could also seek shelter at Contact Ministries. The shelters typically provide dinner.  Give money or food to the shelters, so they can provide the meals to the 50-60 persons who eat dinner each night. I ask persons who work at the food banks, the homeless shelters, and the Fifth Street Renaissance about the panhandlers at the intersections with their cardboard signs, and they say they don't recognize those persons as clients. I expect that it's a difficult life to work as a panhandler and stand at intersections with a sign asking for money for food, and I expect only desperate people would seek their income in that line of work, so I understand why your sympathies and compassion might lead you to give them something. I just would rather give money to the entities that are providing direct services to persons who are really homeless while also working to solve the problem of homelessness in our community.

Housing First Policy

The Housing First policy assists homeless people in finding permanent housing as a mechanism to solve the concurrent problems they may face along with homelessness while combatting homelessness as the source of the problems. It is carried out by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and benefits the homeless on an individual and family level. The policy was created in the 1990’s by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in order to: 

1) provide immediate access to housing with no need to fulfill “readiness” requirements; 

2) give people a sense of choice and self-determination; 

3) provide recovery orientation by addressing underlying issues; 

4) give people support; and 

5) start the process of social and community integration. 

The motivation to support such a program stems from the ideas that housing is a human right, not a privilege and the fact that previous models were not working.

Homelessness is a widespread problem, and there are many people who face chronic homelessness while also suffering from medical issues, mental health problems, and addiction/substance abuse. In the past, there have been programs that aimed at helping homeless people through essentially making them jump through hoops. 

The McKinney Act—which Bill Clinton later renamed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act—provided funds not only for emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent housing, but also for job training, primary health care, mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, education programs, and other supportive services. The consensus was that homelessness is a complex problem whose solution requires more than simply a roof and a bed (Cohen, 2015). 

Now, the Housing First model is thought to be a more successful policy at addressing homelessness. Housing First focuses on providing housing to those with concurrent issues as part of the solution to these issues rather than trying to make people solve the issues before they can have the chance of getting a roof over their head. 

Housing First programs can benefit chronically homeless individuals who have other needs that need to be addressed and also families who may be experiencing a temporary bout of homelessness due to a financial crisis but only need help getting housing, 

Housing First programs often provide rental assistance that varies in duration depending on the household’s needs. Consumers sign a standard lease and are able to access supports as necessary to help them do so. A variety of voluntary services may be used to promote housing stability and well-being during and following housing placement (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2016). 

According to Cohen (2015), the number of chronically homeless has decreased by 21% since the Housing First approach became popular. There are two different program models that can be implemented depending on the situation. First is Permanent Supportive Housing, which targets individuals who have experienced long-term or repeated homelessness who also suffer from health issues, addictions, disabilities, or mental health issues (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2016). This program provides long-term housing in the form of rental assistance, and also supportive services to target any other issues plaguing the individual. Rapid re-housing is the second model and its goal is to provide short-term housing assistance to get individuals/families into housing as soon as possible and then remain there. 

Housing First programs are funded by a variety of sources, 

Medicaid for medically necessary behavioral and rehabilitative services, including mental health case management for tenants eligible and enrolled in Medicaid. State and local safety net funding for short-term and crisis needs, including medical services for those individuals not enrolled in Medicaid. Foundations and other private sources to cover gaps in funding for operational costs and outreach efforts. Federal funding for rental housing subsidization (Open Minds, 2014). 

It has been shown that Housing First is cost effective when it comes to a decrease in spending on emergency services and it also has been shown to cost less than shelter programs. The issue with funding is that the budget is not large enough to expand the affordable housing that is available. So, there is an affordable housing shortage and federal support for more funding has decreased. 

Values that spark support for this program relate to the idea that housing is a human right and not a privilege that people should have to earn. Another reason people support Housing First is because there was an overall realization that getting out of homelessness and having a place to live works as an aid to dealing with some of the issues that were once thought to be something that homeless people had to conquer before they could earn housing. People who value autonomy and choice may also support this program. Values that may cause people to oppose this policy are if they have negative feelings about public aid and feel that it is not their responsibility to help people who cannot help themselves. If people hold the idea of “picking yourself up by the bootstraps” they may not support a program that they feel is giving people too much with too little requirements in return. 

References

Cohen, Rachel M. “'Housing First' Policy for Addressing Homelessness Hamstrung By Funding Issues.” The American Prospect, The American Prospect, 27 Jan. 2015, prospect.org/article/housing-first-policy-addressing-homelessness-hamstrung-funding-issues.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. “Housing First.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Alliance to End Homelessnes, 20 Apr. 2016, endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/.

Open Minds. “What Is ‘Housing First’?” OPEN MINDS, Open Minds, 2 June 2014, www.openminds.com/market-intelligence/executive-briefings/serving-chronically-homeless-housing-first-model/.