Homelessness solutions — always something to be expressed in the plural for such a complex problem — are as elusive as ever, and it seems the state is taking a somewhat new tack this legislative session.
A preventive approach that attacked the problem by giving families on the brink rental subsidy to avert homelessness seems to be giving way to something called “rapid rehousing.”
That is aimed at moving people currently on the streets back into housing before homelessness takes more of a toll on health and well-being.
It is among the models in favor among federal agencies funding program initiatives and — because it works to reduce the numbers visible on the street — among members of the public, too.
And it does make sense that Gov. David Ige seems to be shifting the primary objective in that direction. But it needs to be paired with forceful efforts to expand the housing inventory, as well.
The Ige administration reasoning appears to be shared by lawmakers, who have shelved House Bill 1240 for the session. The measure originally sought additional funds for a program managed by the Aloha United Way for the past year.
In April 2016, the governor alloted $4.7 million to the state Department of Human Services, which contracted with the social-service charity network to run a homelessness initiative, dubbed the Coordinated Statewide Homelessness Initiative.
The plan was to split the money between moving people already homeless into housing, and giving aid to those at high risk of losing their residence and landing out on the street.
AUW officials initially assumed the need among the at-risk households was “a small proportion of what we would be doing, but we learned how significant it was,” said Norm Baker, the agency’s chief operating officer.
Nevertheless, the state has now determined that rapid rehousing will be the target of a new $2.6 million contract.
Under definitions of the term posted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “rapid rehousing” can include preventing people from becoming homeless as an objective. And in fact, bidders submitting proposals for the new contract could suggest that some portion be spent on rental subsidies, said Scott Morishige, the state’s homelessness coordinator.
Baker said there are other agencies that offer rental subsidies, but those programs are generally more restrictive and don’t fit the profile of the household with emergency short-term needs. It was not a pipeline to unending dependency, he added.
“Our focus was the hard-working couple living paycheck to paycheck, and all they need is a bridge to get them through this little emergency,” he said. “The average person used a little more than two months (of subsidy) — the folks didn’t need that much assistance.”
Baker said AUW is pursuing other grants, which is good. The initiative would be the ideal beneficiary for a targeted fundraising campaign; homelessness is a problem that should tap private sources of funding as well.
Further, the state has more work to do on another front — supplying more affordable rentals so there is capacity for rapid rehousing. Housing advocates are concerned that not enough resources are going this session toward the state’s Rental Housing Revolving Fund, a key source of financing for affordable housing development.
It will be the duty of lawmakers to prove the advocates wrong on this point by making sure the rental fund remains healthy.
The perennial search for homelessness solutions once again illuminates how difficult an issue this is. And the reality of life in a high-cost service economy is that outreach to people living on the edge will always remain a core requirement.
Baker offered this metaphor: “It doesn’t make much sense to bail out the canoe if you haven’t patched the holes.” No, it doesn’t. But as a matter of funding, unfortunately, the patching will have to rely less on the state’s public purse.
