Solutions to Homelessness: Shelter First, Housing Earned
In last month’s newsletter, I asked what if everything we thought we knew about homelessness was wrong? I argued if that is the case, then many of the policies we’re pursuing are doomed to fail. That column had an overwhelming response, and one question kept coming: What are the solutions?
Before we get to the solutions, we have to go over some of the challenges we face.
One challenge is the federal court’s Boise decision. In 2019, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – which covers Oregon – ruled that if a person cannot obtain shelter, then any ordinance that imposes criminal penalties for “sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property” violates the U.S. Constitution. Put simply, Boise declares that a city cannot ban overnight camping if there is no available shelter for the campers.
Another challenge is known as the Anderson Agreement. In 2005, the City of Portland and Multnomah County rolled out what they called a 10-year plan to end – yes, end – homelessness. In the middle of that 10-year plan, in 2009, Portland entered into a settlement agreement with several homeless individuals. The case began when four homeless individuals were told on several occasions to “move along” or be cited for violating the City of Portland’s anti-camping ordinance. The individuals filed a class action lawsuit against the city, claiming the city was violating their constitutional rights. Under the Anderson Agreement, the city is required to give illegal campers at least a day’s notice before breaking down and cleaning the camp. In reality, it can be months from the time a camp is reported to the date it is cleaned up.
The third challenge relates to our theory of how homelessness happens. The progressive party line is that homelessness is a housing affordability problem with a dash of systemic racism. Under this theory, mental health and substance use disorders are caused or exacerbated by homelessness. There is growing evidence, however, that this theory is inaccurate, if not backwards. With the rise of fentanyl and new formulations of methamphetamine, it’s become more clear that mental health and substance use disorders are the key causes of homelessness, not the other way around. Housing unaffordability is a side effect of unemployability or the choice to prioritize paying for drugs rather than housing.
Because policymakers’ theory is backward, so are their solutions. In the Portland region and much of the state, homelessness policies are based on a “housing first” approach. The idea is to get people into housing first. Not shelter, housing. Expensive publicly funded “permanent supportive housing.” Permanent means permanent: Residents can stay as long as they want. Supportive means it includes expensive “wraparound” services, such as health and wellness treatment, substance use disorder treatment, and job training. Because the focus is on “housing first,” residents are under no obligation to seek treatment or job training. The hope is after they are housed, someday eventually they’ll come around to getting help, but only when they’re ready. “We’ve got to meet people where they’re at” is a phrase you hear a lot in housing first circles.
As I noted in the previous column, it’s a policy that’s doomed to fail. It’s well known in the recovery field that the people who are most in need of treatment are also those who are most resistant to treatment. Handing addicts the keys to an apartment that cost $300,000 or more to build and saying, “Let us know when you’re ready for rehab,” is a recipe for failure. Most of them will never be ready.
Shelter first, housing earned
There is a more effective approach. Michael Shellenberger, author of “San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities,” calls it “shelter first, housing earned.”
Everyone should have the right to basic shelter, but not the right to camp wherever they want. The Portland region needs indoor shelter space for thousands of people. It doesn’t have to be fancy, it doesn’t have to be nice, and it certainly doesn’t need to be LEED Platinum. It just has to be better than outdoors, which is a pretty low burden to meet. For those who refuse to sleep indoors, we need a designated camping area away from our residential neighborhoods. As much as people roll their eyes at Dignity Village, for more than 20 years, it’s been a fairly successful model.
Once we have sufficient shelter space, we can enforce overnight camping bans and be in compliance with the Boise decision. To help those who are unsheltered, and to help stay in compliance, we should develop a region-wide, near-real-time database of available shelter space. It’s shocking we don’t have one already. Once in place, homeless individuals, services providers and law enforcement can use the database to accurately find overnight shelter for anyone who needs it. This seems like a job for Metro’s supportive housing services program. Metro is sitting on a gusher of money and has its own Data Resource Center.
It’s been a decade since Portland entered the Anderson Agreement. The homelessness landscape has changed enormously since then. Back then, there were few camps and most of the public sleeping was concentrated in downtown. Today, almost every Portland resident is within a quarter mile of a homeless camp. Everyone has, or knows someone who has, a story of the consequences, whether it’s a burglary, car prowl, bike theft, catalytic converter theft, strewn needles, or feces in their doorway. It’s time to revisit and revise the Anderson Agreement to allow for a rapid and humane clean-up of the camps that bring crime, violence, public health risks and environmental damage.
Oregon’s subsidized housing is expensive and highly limited. By the end of this year, Metro and the City of Portland hope to have almost 1,600 units completed at a cost of more than $360,000 a unit under their affordable housing bond programs. That’s about 320 units a year. These units should be allocated to people who have earned the right to these units by demonstrating they will take the necessary steps to transition to permanent housing and a productive lifestyle. These units should not be simply given away without conditions or expectations.
We need resources to help people transition from shelter first to housing earned. Given the magnitude of the problem, priority should be given to addressing mental health and substance use disorders. We need to repeal the state’s “certificate of need” laws that stifle the construction and expansion of mental health and substance use treatment centers. We need to relax occupational licensing rules so we can attract professionals from other states to provide these services. We need navigators to help homeless individuals get Medicaid or Veterans Administration benefits to pay for the treatment. Provisions of Measure 110 that earmark marijuana tax revenues to substance use treatment might help at some point, but it’s too soon to tell. If Metro was serious about ending homelessness, nearly all of its supportive housing tax revenues should be directed toward addressing mental health and substance use.
Public spaces belong to all of us
Our elected officials need to understand that our parks, sidewalks and other public spaces belong to all of us. When rows of tents block the sidewalks on the Burnside Bridge, they deny the use of that sidewalk to the rest of the community. (And, blocking the sidewalk from wheelchair access is likely a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the city has an obligation to enforce and should be sued over.) When open air drug use and discarded needles render playgrounds unsafe, the rest of the community is denied the use of the parks our tax dollars are paying for. Outdoor camping, open drug use, theft, assaults, and out-of-control campfires are not victimless activities; they deprive us of our public spaces, our rights to safety, and our rights to pursue gainful employment.
While Measure 110 decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, drug trafficking is still a felony. All of our homeless addicts are getting their drugs from somewhere. Law enforcement and prosecutors need to shut down the dealing of these drugs on our streets, in tents and tarps, and on social media. Open drug use should be prosecuted. Individuals who commit crimes while under the influence of narcotics should be given the stark choice of rehab or jail. Most Oregonians don’t care if someone is using drugs at home or out-of-sight, but when that drug use leads to theft to pay for the drugs or violence because of the drugs, that’s when individual liberty threatens community safety.
For close to 40 years, the Portland region has been dealing with a homeless crisis. It’s time to recognize that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked, isn’t working, and is doomed to fail in the future. We’ve got to get out of our backward theories and away from the failed housing first approach.
We need a new approach: Shelter first, housing earned, and resources to transition from shelter to housing. Measure 110 may have decriminalized drug possession, but it didn’t decriminalize drug dealing and the crimes that occur under the influence of drugs. It’s the only way we can help those who want help, be firm with those who don’t, and create an environment where we all can feel safe and flourish.