n the next legislative session, lawmakers will likely create a new position in state government — homeless czar. That person will lead a state-level governance structure to better coordinate and provide accountability to combat homelessness across the state.
So, five years from now, will we have fewer homeless people and be on a path to eliminate homelessness?
I wouldn’t bet the farm.
Certainly, we can do better, and we must try. But homelessness and its associated problems are as difficult as any public policy challenge in today’s world. Just look at the big metropolitan areas that have thrown immense resources and funding at homelessness. In many cases, the problems have become worse, not better.
The reason is that the underlying causes of homelessness and its associated difficulties are much more fundamental than can be solved with money or housing. In addition to the oft-cited substance abuse and mental illness, homelessness is caused by dysfunctional families, lack of education, lack of self-discipline and initiative, and even outright criminality.
I am confident that Utah’s new approach will be better. And every person helped is a big win. The new governance structure has been well conceived with a major study by the Gardner Policy Institute and assistance from a broad range of individuals and organizations with great experience and expertise.
Still, don’t expect miracles. The best minds in America have tackled homelessness and no one really has it figured out. That’s because basic human behavior and modern cultural dysfunction are hard to change.
Five years from now, expect homeless problems to still exist.
We didn’t pay much attention to homelessness when I was a kid growing up in the ‘50s and ’60 in Utah County, while also making frequent trips to downtown Salt Lake City to visit my grandmother. We didn’t see many homeless people, although they were around, probably more than we realized. We called itinerant homeless people “hobos” or “tramps” and some of them did hop freight trains to follow the weather. It was even viewed by some as a somewhat romantic lifestyle.
Most families were far less prosperous in those days than they are today. Families were bigger, homes were smaller, and most families had one vehicle. And yet homelessness seemed less of a problem. While families certainly had challenges, I do believe families stepped up more to help members in trouble, and perhaps family members in trouble were more willing to accept help.
And the hard reality was that government didn’t help much in those days, so it was family and friends, or nothing. Forced to take care of each other as family members, most families did so, though not without difficulty and sacrifice. Churches also played a role.
I suspect that drug and alcohol addiction is worse today than it was then, although there were certainly plenty of problems with substance abuse. And while mental health problems were likely as bad, they weren’t as visible. Some people with severe mental illness were institutionalized. We didn’t talk much about mental health, and that was unfortunate.
This is a generalization, and there were clearly plenty of exceptions, but I believe immediate families, extended families, and churches dealt with, not always successfully, many of the things that today lead to homelessness. Today, in some ways, we ask government to replace families. And that’s a near-impossible task.
I’ve worked with many homeless people over a number of years. I won’t be saying anything new here, but homeless people are as diverse as society in general. Many are good, responsible people who have fallen on hard times and are motivated to work and get back on their feet. Those are the easy cases. With some help, they are often back into society in a few months.
There are also those who really to want to break out of homelessness, and they make promises and get jobs. But they always seem to slip back into old ways. Some don’t have enough skills to cope with life’s difficulties. They give up easily and cycle in and out of homelessness.
Some homeless people are smart and crafty. They know how to work the system; they know the bureaucracy, the services, and how to exploit them. Some homeless people simply don’t want to live any differently. They are societal dropouts, and certainly some of them suffer with mental illness or addiction. Some of them refuse help, don’t want housing, and are extremely difficult to assist permanently.
And, as in the rest of society, a few homeless people are simply criminals – bad people seeking to take advantage of others.
Crafting programs and solutions to deal effectively with the wide variety of homeless people and problems is very difficult and will never be completely successful.
Another very difficult challenge is striking the right balance between providing assistance and requiring progress and accountability. Tough love is sometimes necessary. Too much assistance with low expectations will attract more and more people. Nanny states don’t work in the long run.
No one wants anyone to suffer in the cold. But it’s remarkable how resilient some people can be when they must be. I’ve seen people who had tried and failed many times, who could be extremely irresponsible, change when they had no other choice. They figured things out, relied on family, friends and churches, and did what had to be done.
But not everyone is like that, and that’s what makes dealing with homelessness challenging.
One other point: Homelessness at one time was a family problem. Then it became a local government problem – mostly a city problem. Now it is going to be dropped squarely in the lap of state government. Certainly, this significant state intervention and funding is designed to better coordinate services at all levels by all providers. It will be great if it works. But I would hate to see homelessness kicked up to the federal level. The danger is that as societal problems are moved up the government ladder, the levels below, including families, take less responsibility. We’ve seen a lot of state and federal government mission creep.
None of this is meant to be critical of the new initiatives to combat homelessness. I like the plans being developed. But we ought not to expect miracles. And some way, somehow, we need to reinstate families as the first line of defense.
