Where Most Needed

The New York Times reports on a "new campaign" that puts homeless people into apartments with no strings attached—that is, they don't have to stop drinking or drug use or agree to treatment for mental illness.  The San Francisco Chronicle more accurately notes that the program was begun by the Bush administration back in 2003 (at which time NPR ran a series of stories).  What prompted this flurry of coverage could be a leadership conference held in May in Denver, sponsored by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness.

The campaign is producing dramatic reductions in homeless populations, from 10% to 40% using different measures (overall population or just chronic homeless).  Driving the campaign is USICH director Philip Magano, who promotes the idea relentlessly on the basis of the economics of care:  it costs less to house the chronically homeless than it does to continually care for them through shelters, emergency rooms, and jails.  Once they are housed without conditions, it is easier to offer them additional help, which they may or may not accept—but many do.  Here's a transcript of a panel discussion from 2004 that goes into how the programs have worked. 

What is important here is that, even in an administration generally opposed to government action, the government is promoting a common approach to a common problem.  Homelessness in the US is generally treated as a local issue, which has led to a proliferation of local programs and charities.  The National Alliance to End Homelessness (EIN 52-1299641 Form 990) is more of a think tank and educational venture than a coordinator. 

Some of these local groups have served as pilots for the new approach, like Pathways to Housing (EIN  13-3686794 Form 990) in New York and  Project Homeless Connect in San Francisco (city project, no form 990, but donations handled through San Francisco Goodwill EIN 94-1156540 Form 990).

These approaches have not caused the problem to go away, and lack of funding may still keep the system from full implementation (even though the total cost is less, funding still needs to be shifted).  And it deals only with the chronic homeless, which admittedly consume a disproportionate amount of the system's resources.  However, it looks like a method that has some promise.