It is often suggested that homelessness is a moral failing. People are choosing to be homeless because of some character deficiency or moral flaw. Bad choices lead to homelessness.
First, people want to have a safe home. Check out the results from two surveys below for evidence of that fact.
Second, people might opt to remain unsheltered if the only sheltering options require them to give up a pet or to separate from a loved one. Trauma is another reason why some folks might opt to say “No” to an offer of help. When people have been wounded and let down so many times by people they trust and by systems, they are less likely to put their faith in people who are offering help.
Third, this myth is often brought up in conversation around providing services to unsheltered people. Even if this myth were partially true, are we then supposed to assume that all unsheltered people are choosing to live on the streets? If, say, 25% of unsheltered people were choosing to live that way, does that mean we should not care for the other 75%?
The philosopher William James asked an important question for a discussion like this: “What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true?” If the idea that homelessness is a choice is true, offering sheltering and housing services would be a waste of resources. If homelessness is a result of some moral failing, it would make sense to employ more punitive and corrective measures. Ideas have consequences. And this particular idea is harmful to the hundreds of thousands of people who are unsheltered in America.
A study in Denver speaks to this myth:
Between January 2016 and December 2017, 363 people were referred to the Denver Social Impact program. Within six months of referral, 311 were located. And of those located, 90 percent agreed to housing within six months. The average time between the initial meeting and a client agreeing to housing was just six days, and 81 percent agreed to begin the housing application process within just a day of being located. Of the 240 people with approved housing applications, almost all participants leased up into housing (96 percent).
This means of the 363 people experiencing chronic homelessness who were randomly selected to receive treatment, 63 percent engaged with the service providers and moved into housing (also known as the project’s take-up rate). In other words, regardless of whether they were actively seeking help, 63 percent of participants engaged with the program and agreed to move into housing. Very few studies track take-up rates, making this evaluation one of the few benchmarks for engaging participants who are not actively seeking services.
These strong take-up numbers highlight the desire for housing among Denver’s chronically homeless population, debunking the idea that people would choose homelessness when given the option of permanent supportive housing.
Comments