The homeless population of America today has been most evident in large urban centers of the country, most notably visible in areas in and around Los Angeles and New York City. Public concern for the homeless increased in the late 1960s after the Vietnam War, when a specific lawsuit out of New York City was filed in an attempt to secure “shelter space” for every homeless man (women were included later). The homeless plaintiffs eventually won the lawsuit, but then issues regarding the definition and characterization of homelessness and housing status arose from the ashes of legal battles. Classification and legal aside, the solution to housing our homeless has little to do with availability of homes.
In regard to the definition of homelessness, one camp suggested that it should include people in unstable housing situations in addition to those that literally have no overnight shelter. In the 1970s and early 1980s, concerns were raised about the status of veterans of the Vietnam War who were now looking to find their place in society. It became hard to ignore related issues of disability and unemployment as the issue broadened to include more of the general population. The unemployment rate rose to 10.8 percent in December 1982. Many housing program advocates began to push for a broader definition of homelessness after citing the obvious connection between recent economic trends and housing stability of even working Americans, much less those Americans that were out of work for reasons beyond their control.
The other camp, particularly those associated directly with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), argued that it was more important to specifically define “housing status” of a given individual or family so that action and policy designed to alleviate homelessness could be more pointed and focused. The plague of homelessness does not exist in a vacuum, but rather is circumstantial and due to factors that extend beyond a person’s ability to find a physical place to dwell. It is almost as if HUD would be better served by focusing on urban development more so than housing. Lack of housing and its associated effects tend to be on the tail end of a series of factors that lead one along the line of societal downgrade and economic depression, which would lead one to believe that the two camps are too narrowly focused.
FDR’s New Deal included a plethora of government assistance programs (for example, the US Housing Authority, among others) to help Americans get back on their feet in response to the Great Depression. Historians refer to the 3 R’s (relief, recovery, and reform) as a summary of the New Deal agenda and policy goals. With this program, homelessness and poverty were addressed with comprehensive government action that extended beyond immediate quick fixes and temporary relief. LBJ’s Great Society was a closely related program that extended government arms to address poverty and associated racial and social injustices. Comprehensive individual, community, and national development programs all require a wrap-around approach that encompasses all potential areas of growth and maturation. In a sense, the Great Society was aimed at this goal.
During the Reagan Administration the number of homeless Americans increased in large part because of the reduction in the number of people eligible to receive federal disability payments. However, the first major and direct response to the homelessness crisis came during President Reagan’s second term, when the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act was signed in 1987. This measure authorized programs in shelters to include medical services, employment search services, and job skills training. There was even some communication and cross-collaboration between the Department of Education and HUD to provide services for children and school-aged youth. However, it was not until 2003 that the Social Security Administration got into the act by starting programs to help the chronically homeless (only one definition of homeless) apply for federal disability payments in an attempt to indirectly alleviate homelessness.
In the early 1990s, there was a consensus reached that the root cause of non-chronic homelessness (yet another definition of homelessness) was an insufficient amount of affordable housing for families. However, housing availability is only a side effect to the larger disease of lack of viable economic opportunity, mobility, and education, sometimes even in the wake of additional mental health issues. We have seen through previous Administrations that government agency and departmental collaborations have been successful in addressing homelessness. Many players in the game included entities external to HUD and various public housing authorities. The way to address homelessness is to create programs that support overall human well being, touching on social, environmental, and educational factors. Otherwise we are just fumbling around with definitions of people that we are trying to place in housing rather than giving people the means and motivation to live in housing. A good place for communities to begin the process is by taking a look at the National Alliance to Prevent Homelessness Ten Essentials for communities. It is roadmap to begin the journey of ending homelessness in every community.
Imran Khan,Guest Contributor
Imran occasionally blogs at iuk0162.wordpress.com.