Why not learn from other cities?
Over the years, Portland’s city government has made great efforts to
address homelessness, and some progress has been made. But homelessness remains
a serious problem, some measures or plans have also caused great controversy, for
example, the public camping ban and establishment of sanctioned campsites. There
is an urgent need to learn from the success of other cities and make some
policy improvements. Here, I would like to introduce some successful experience
of Boston and Houston.
Boston’s officials are employing what
they refer to as a “public health response” to unsheltered homelessness. They
are making measurable progress toward resolving encampments through connections
to health care, treatment, interim shelter, and permanent homes—not law
enforcement and bulldozers. The following are some of their unique and
actionable experiences that appear to be applicable to many other cities:
Harm Reduction and “Whole Person” Treatment: Boston’s health care providers and homeless outreach teams used
non-judgmental listening to engage people, build their trust, figure out what
they needed to lower their risk of dangerous or fatal outcomes (such as
overdoses), and personalize a path to recovery. Health care providers are
offering a “whole
person” approach to treatment: meeting
people where they are; attending to primary care and social needs like housing,
food, and community; and adapting treatment modalities based on individual
needs.
Reimagined Shelters: The city used Emergency Solutions
Grants from the CARES Act and State and Local Fiscal Recovery funds from the
American Rescue Plan to launch three (and eventually four) sites near the
encampment that operated as special 24-hour “low-threshold” shelters. Compared
to other shelters in the city, these offered more privacy (with no more than a
few residents in each room), more freedom (residents could come and go as they
wanted), and more empathy for the realities of addiction (substance use was not
allowed in the facility but outside use did not expel them from the shelter).
Housing: To move people quickly into permanent
housing, the city used Emergency Housing Vouchers from the American Rescue
Plan, Emergency Solutions Grants from the CARES Act, Housing Choice Vouchers
from Boston Housing Authority, and a revamped coordinated-entry system. New
permanent supportive housing is being developed that will serve as another
option for former encampment residents.
Boston is demonstrating that it is possible
to get people off the streets and into shelter and housing with a proactive
public health approach rather than an aggressive approach driven by law
enforcement.
Houston’s The Way Home continuum is managed by the Coalition for
the Homeless, with the city, counties and various partners operating with a
shared goal. All funding, including federal, state and county funds, grants to
individual agencies or philanthropic contributions, is arranged by The Way
Home’s steering committee, which consists of county leaders, various other
government officials and agency leaders and a range of others.
Any organization or agency that receives funding has to be part of the homeless
response system. The steering committee uses data to drive its decision-making.
When it comes to how to distribute funding, allocate resources and determine
what programs to take on, the committee invests wherever the data shows that they
get the biggest rate of return.
Ultimately, Houston’s strategy has worked because since that initial community
meeting it has received strong political support. The aligned leadership make
it a priority between providers; systems; and city, county, and other local
elected officials. (Ziwen)
If you want to know
more information, please click:
How Houston’s homeless strategy
became a model for other US citiesBy Danielle McLean • Nov. 29, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment