The Real Violence: Policy Failures and the Case for Housing First

Last month, the USA rebranded their “Department of War”, and National Guard troops continued to patrol the streets of Washington DC (leading to sizeable protests and at least one lawsuit) as part of President Donald Trump’s reported plan to “crack down on crime and homelessness”. While all of this was happening, I read an article that explained how, were he to do the same thing in Chicago (as he has threatened to), it would cost a whopping $1.6 million per day – which is four times as much as it would cost to simply provide housing to the city’s homeless.

The Intercept reports that dozens of Chicago pastors wrote an open letter to Trump saying that “the real violence in Chicago –like real violence across America – is not the violence of the streets but the violence of policy: underfunded schools, disappearing jobs, healthcare deserts, food apartheid and a criminal justice system that treats poverty like a capital offense”.

And with that, they hit the nail on the head.

As with policing and crime reduction, it has been proven time and time again that it is cheaper and more effective to address the root causes of societal ills than to constantly treat the symptoms. Sadly, though, homeless people tend to be demonised a lot more than other sectors of society. A survey undertaken by Ipsos in the UK revealed that, when asked about the characteristics of people experiencing homelessness, people assumed that 53% of them were dealing with a drug or alcohol problem, when the real figure is somewhere between 5% and 7%. Thankfully, that same research also found that only 20% of people surveyed believe homelessness is due to bad choices made by the individuals themselves, with around half saying they believed they are in that situation due to circumstances beyond their control.

In numerous cities across the planet, it is essentially “illegal” to be homeless, with people living on the streets fined or imprisoned for doing so – the rationale being that there are homeless shelters these people can use rather than “being an eyesore”. Yet, those shelters are often also not the answer required to solve the problem and many people experiencing homelessness actively avoid them due to various issues including, but not limited to, lack of privacy, fear of violence or theft, rigid rules that do not take realities into account, fear of judgement, loss

of dignity and sometimes even not being allowed to bring their animal companions with them.

So what is the solution? Well, as simple as it sounds: house them!

So what is the solution? Well, as simple as it sounds: house them!

Alright, that is not necessarily such a simple thing, especially in a country like Namibia where there is a severe lack of housing, but countless studies have shown that it is far cheaper to provide housing to people than to pay for policing, prosecuting and fining them. A study undertaken in America as part of a Housing First project modelled on the successful Scandinavian project of the same name – which does not expect people to first solve any drug, alcohol or mental problems before they qualify for housing – found that it could cost up to $150,000 to carry on dealing with homelessness the way it has always been done, compared to $25,000 to provide them with safe, secure and stable housing.

Sure, there will be issues, and some people will not be able to benefit from the system, as is the case with any system, but everywhere the Housing First model has been implemented it has resulted in a net positive. In fact, in a slightly different version of the Housing First model introduced in Australia, a cost-benefit analysis showed that for every $1 invested in tackling homelessness through providing housing, $2.70 worth of benefits would be generated for the community over 20 years. That is a net benefit of $10,800 per year, with the authors of the research paper saying that “governments and society benefit more than they spend by providing last-resort housing to homeless individuals... mainly through reduced healthcare costs, reduced crime and people getting back into employment or education”.

And that is not even taking into account the often intangible mental health benefits of having safe and secure housing, which in a country like Namibia, with such a high suicide rate (bearing in mind that last month was also World Suicide Prevention Month) could go a long way towards explaining some of why that is.

Until next time, enjoy your journey.

David Bishop