Rice University's premier undergraduate journal of scholarship in domestic and international policy.
Basma Bedawi
Mar 22
What Other Cities Can Learn From Houston’s “Housing First” Model
Photo by David J. Phillip/AP Photo
In the United States, one in every 14 Americans are unhoused at some point in their lives. A variety of factors have led to this, including systemic racism, the deconstruction of the nation's mental health services, substance abuse systems, and low wages. Ending homelessness entirely would likely require the restructuring of the entire nation (Kimmelman 2022). But, before that, we can simply house people.
Modern homelessness is relatively new: it began 50 years ago with the closing—rather than restructuring—of psychiatric hospitals due to rampant abuse. This resulted in many of those experiencing mental health issues being untreated and therefore unable to maintain employment to pay for housing (Kimmelman 2022). Additionally, cities began granting tax incentives to those that chose to convert properties into market-rate rentals and single family homes, causing the mass loss of places that once housed vulnerable populations. Apartments became sparse and the affordable housing market turned into a losing game (Kimmelman 2022). Increases in unhoused populations coincided with a national shift to a “tough on crime” mindset, where politicians’ number one priority was arresting those who they viewed as dangerous, including unhoused people. Rather than addressing the underlying causes of the recent increase in homelessness, communities with increasingly prominent unhoused populations began pushing them out of view with laws criminalizing camping, sleeping, resting, eating, or asking for donations. As “broken windows policing”—the prosecution of visible indications of disorder such as vandalism or loitering—became common practice, the number of those arrested for acts associated with homelessness grew. From 2006-2019, across the nation, city-wide bans on camping increased by 92%, on sitting or lying by 78%, on loitering by 103%, on panhandling by 103%, and on living in vehicles by 213% (Tars 2021).
The criminalization of being unhoused continues to rise, even though it hinders people's ability to escape homelessness. These laws mean that many unhoused people are taken to jail, likely losing their job in the process, and are released with criminal records, making it challenging for them to obtain employment or housing upon release (Dholakia 2021). Additionally, they may accumulate fines and fees associated with their case, and without the ability to pay they run the risk of facing additional jail time. Moreover, unhoused residents often experience “sweeps” of their encampments, where they are forcefully evicted with no alternative housing. Devastatingly, sweeps may also result in the destruction of important documents and medicines in addition to the elimination of what little shelter unhoused people may have (Tars 2021).
Fortunately, these laws are being challenged. In Martin v. Doise (2019), the 9th Circuit Court held that “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, unhoused people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter” (Letona 2022). In 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case, allowing the decision to stand. At the same time, a national increase in hostile architecture still restricts unhoused individuals' access to public spaces (Suleiman 2022). Hostile architecture is an urban design strategy where public spaces include structures used to prevent certain people, primarily those experiencing homelessness, from using a space. This can be seen in window sill switch spikes and park benches with unnecessary arm rests in order to prevent unhoused people from resting or sleeping in these spaces (The Neighborhood Design Center 2023).
At its core, the criminalization of homelessness is not only inhumane and ineffective but also more expensive than housing these individuals (Tars 2021). As such, researchers and advocates alike have worked to find the most efficient and effective way to house people. Their efforts have formed a program called “Housing First,” and it is already beginning to show results. While most rehousing programs require people to address their mental health concerns, resolve substance abuse issues, or undergo job training before receiving housing, Housing First focuses on getting people into permanent housing and offering support services only after they have shelter (Cohen 2022). This policy is built on the idea that people cannot take the steps to improve their lives when they do not have the basic right of housing. When implemented in Charlotte, NC, the city saved $2.4 million over the course of a year as tenants spent 1,050 fewer nights in jail and 292 fewer days in the hospital (Tars 2021).
No city provides a better example of the effectiveness of Housing First than Houston, Texas. The city persuaded local service providers, corporations, and nonprofits to come together and provide assistance for those experiencing chronic homelessness. “Chronic” is an important distinction here: most of those who are unhoused experience it for six weeks or fewer, and it is a temporary condition that they eventually manage to resolve. Houston focuses on those who have been unhoused for more than a year or have been unhoused repeatedly in order to make homelessness rare and brief. Before the program, Houston had one of the highest unhoused populations per capita nationwide, with the city squandering millions of dollars by jailing unhoused Houstonians for a variety of victimless offenses. Those living on the streets had resorted to using ambulances to get basic medical care and dozens of local organizations were competing for funds, duplicating services, and not sharing information amongst themselves. Under Housing First, the Houston government met with these organizations, seeing what they needed to adequately house people and opened communication between them. Since implementation, the city has housed over two-thirds of its unhoused population (Kimmelman 2022). Other cities should learn from Houston’s approach and begin to understand that rather than criminalizing its unhoused populations in order to get them off the streets, they should house them.
The views expressed in this publication are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rice Journal of Public Policy, its staff, or its Editorial Board.
Comments