Does Housing First SUCK?

housing first as polarizing as pineapple on Pizza some call it a breakthrough others a ticking Time Bomb how can one approach be both the hero and the

villain in the fight against homelessness well today we're going to cut through the noise to explore why housing first shines in theory but often

stumbles in practice and why the debate is far from black and white

[Music] at its core housing first is both a

Visionary philosophy and a practical framework rapid access to housing paired with supportive services without any preconditions in theory it's a

no-brainer but here's the catch many organizations sometimes entire communities slap the housing first label

on programs that are really just housing only they skip the crucial step comprehensive individualized support the result of doing it without

those comprehensive individualized supports Apartments get trashed landlords get fed up and people end up back on the

[Music] streets Dr Samson Bears popularized housing first in the early 1990s with his revolutionary Pathways to housing

program in New York City his model provided a measurable framework for success but when communities claim to be

doing housing first without adhering to its full set of principles the outcomes become a mixed bag and that's when the

critiques roll in links to some of those critiques they're in the description the debate over housing first splits along ideological fault lines there's

three primary groups recovery oriented Advocates this group Champions a model that mirrors an ideal recovery system complete with individualized

person-driven supports Community integration and a focus on self-determination now ironically some in this Camp balk at rapid no strings

attached access to housing preferring to treat housing as a reward for meeting preset milestones and those preset Milestones are usually attached to

maintaining sobriety or completing programming sometimes this is couched as personal accountability or what is labeled as whole person Wellness then

there are the critics from the right they argue that housing first conveniently sidesteps the so-called root causes of homelessness which they

claim are ment to illness addiction and poverty now sure millions in America grapple with these issues yet only a small fraction become

homeless their critique often overlooks that housing first is designed to mitigate immediate harm it's not designed to solve every systemic

problem many in this Camp suggest that the rise in homelessness is is a result of the housing first approach and it conveniently dismisses a

range of other policy and economic factors and then there are the critics from the left on the flip side progressives assert that homelessness is

fundamentally about not having a home but when the essential wraparound supports are dropped even the best intentioned

housing first programs falter many with this political leaning point to proof points that are small in

communities that have seen reductions in homelessness even for a short period of time and not sustained for people on the left suggestions that housing first is

imperfect or not always applied correctly in practice is seen as Blasphemous in some [Music]

circles let's set the record straight the five core principles of housing first are number one no housing Readiness requirements housing is a

right not a privilege stable housing is the foundation for improving other areas of life not the reward for doing so critics of housing first often

misunderstand this assuming it means housing without responsibility but in reality stable housing reduces the chaos in people's

lives making it easier to engage with supports and work toward recovery second core principle choice and self-determination people are experts in

their own life this means they should have the power to make decisions about their housing and

services housing first programs work best when individuals have the ability to choose where they live and what's reports they feel are necessary this is

better than being forced into a rigid program that may not meet their unique needs or which placed them in a housing unit that they did not want this

principle is grounded in evidence that autonomy and personal agency lead to better long-term outcomes when people

feel in control of their own lives they are more likely to engage in positive change principle number

three recovery orientation this includes support for mental health substance use trauma and

Beyond housing first does not ignore issues like addiction or mental illness in fact it actively addresses them by ensuring the support services such as

mental health counseling substance use treatment and Medical Care are available and easily accessible and often integrated into the support

plan the difference between housing first and traditional models is that services are often offered without

coercion a person's recovery journey is self-directed meaning they can access help when they are ready rather than being forced into a treatment first

model that they may not find effective for them principle number four

individualized person- centered supports housing first is not one size fits all every person experiencing

homelessness has unique needs backgrounds and challenges some may require intensive case management While others may only need minimal

support housing first emphasizes tailoring services to the individual rather than than applying a blanket

approach this flexibility is what makes it effective for a wide range of people from those with complex needs to those who simply need a stable place to live

to get back on their feet now when programs fail to provide individualized support those programs often struggle with long-term housing retention with

the people they're supporting and finally core principle five community and social integration housing without connection

leads to isolation moving someone into housing is only part of the solution helping them build relationships and engaging

Community is just as important isolation can be just as harmful as homelessness

itself now that's why housing first programs when Opera with Fidelity focus on creating opportunities for social engagement opportunities for employment

and opportunities for Community involvement that could be through the likes of peer support groups job training recreational activities anything that Fosters a sense of

belonging is key to success without these elements housing can feel like another form of institutionalization rather than a

pathway to Independence yes housing first saves money reducing Healthcare law enforcement and incarceration costs Studies have

repeatedly shown that housing first when practiced with Fidelity can save anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000 per person annually compared to traditional

home services and emergency intervention a widely cited study from Denver found that every $1 invested in housing first resulted in nearly $2 in cost savings

due to reduced emergency room visits hospitalizations and interactions with law enforcement similarly the atome shuis study in Canada demonstrated that for

high needs participants every $10 spent on housing first resulted in an average of $21.78 cents in savings to the public system but here's the kicker those

savings don't go back into homeless services instead they benefit Health Care Systems police departments and Correctional

Facilities none of which directly reinvest those savings into expanding Housing Programs what this does is creates a frustrating

Paradox housing first demonstrably reduces societal costs yet those reductions rarely translate into

increased funding for housing [Music] itself meanwhile Frontline agencies

continue to shoulder the burden by scraping together resources meanwhile policy makers cherry-pick data to fit their

agendas some local jurisdictions adopt a water down version of housing first just to secure funding failing to implement

it with Fidelity the result of that well programs that lack the necessary Support Services setting people up to fail and

giving critics more ammunition to attack the approach without proper investment and reintegration of cost savings into homelessness

response even the best housing first models faced uphill battles one more critical

point housing first has never promised to work 100% of the time for 100% of the people studies show that while many

participants achieve lasting stability at least 20 to 30% do not sustain housing long term now this isn't necessarily a failure of the

approach it's really just an acknowledgement of the deep complex challenges that some individuals face factors such as severe untreated mental

illness chronic substance use trauma and a lack of personal support networks can all contribute to housing and stability even with the best designed

programs you'd be foolish to think that housing first is a magic cure it's a strategy that provides the best chance

at stability but it is not a guarantee for all Beyond The Well trodden debates it's important to address the

following First Fidelity and training the success of housing first depends on rigorous adherance to its principles without proper training and

consistent Fidelity checks even the best programs can falter many communities claim to follow housing first but fall short in execution due to an adequate training or

a lack of understanding of the full framework proper implementation requires ongoing education it requires program monitoring and it requires a commitment to

maintaining Fidelity to evidence-based practices such as a recovery oriented housing focused intensive case management model or recovery oriented

housing focused assert commity treatment model second thing that's missing consideration of local contact

texts Urban centers suburbs and rural areas each present unique challenges a one- siiz fits-all blueprint rarely Works across diverse

settings in dense Urban environments securing enough housing units and a competitive market can be a major barrier meanwhile in rural communities

geographic isolation limited service infrastructure and fewer landlords willing to participate in housing first programs can pose significant

obstacles each region requires an adaptable strategy that aligns with its specific housing availability population needs and service capacity the third

thing that seems to be missing landlord and community relations securing willing landlords and fostering Community Support is a critical yet often overlooked component

of success housing first programs rely heavily on private Market landlords to provide units but without incentives landlord

Outreach and without risk mitigation measures participation can be limited landlords who have had negative experiences with poorly supported

housing first participants may be hesitant to rent to Future program participants proactive relationship

building education on housing first practices and reliable support services for both tenants and landlords can

strengthen the program additionally communities need to be engaged in conversations about housing first to

address its misconceptions to build local support and reduce not in my backyard or NIMBY resistance that can prevent the

expansion of these programs housing first is not a silver bullet its success hinges on strict adherence to

its principles robust support systems and critically an adequate supply of housing that is Affordable the debate is

complex with valid criticisms on all sides but one thing is clear if we're serious about ending homelessness

we need both Visionary approaches and practical means to sustain them so do we just give up on housing first I

say no the proof is there when it's done right it works when

it is not done right it does not work and compared to other approaches when it's done right it performs better

if you don't know how to do housing first there are technical assistance providers that can guide you through implementation challenges if you are skeptical talk to

the Frontline practitioners who are doing housing first the right way if you want evidence read the work of leading academics who have rigorously

researched and critiqued housing first if you want real world impact listen to the thousands of people who have successfully exited homelessness through housing

first and if you want a balance view hear from those who have been harmed by poor implementation of housing first in the end people experiencing homelessness

consistently say they need some variation of these three things somewhere to live something to do someone to love be sure to check the

links in the description for depth studies further reading and a deeper dive into the debate I'd encourage you to add your comments and perspectives on when you

have seen housing first done well and when you've seen it falter respectfully share your voice in this important conversation and let's continue to move

forward in Practical approaches that work on reducing and ending homelessness thanks for watching