Just a week earlier, the outreach team had found Mrs. Harris in her tent under the highway. Now, as if by magic, she was here, shocked after five years on the street. Opening the apartment door revealed an empty white-walled living room and neat galley kitchen, which the field workers began stocking up with basic necessities. The coalition would send furniture and other household items within days. Mrs. Harris opened a kitchen drawer, then another. Her facial expression was reminiscent of Tom Hanks’ character in ‘Cast Away’, when he finally returned home, staring in disbelief at the simple sight of ice in a glass. The walk-in closet in the bedroom was bigger and nicer than anywhere Mrs. Harris had lived with her daughter Blesit. Mrs. Harris hugged the practitioners. Then she dropped to the carpet and cried.
She was lucky. The vast majority of the 50,000 people in the Houston area seeking some form of homelessness service in 2021 were not eligible for an apartment. Most were “redirected”: they received housing assistance, or were given help with signing up for food stamps or Social Security benefits. Part of the job of the continuum is to identify and rate people according to a federal “vulnerability index,” which uses a set of standard questions to determine who is most vulnerable on the street. Intended to systematize a selection process historically rife with discrimination and arbitrary decision-making, the index has racial and gender biases of its own, critics say. For example, one study found that while white and black women are equally likely to become homeless due to trauma, white women are much more likely to report trauma and thus rank higher on the index. Houston has come up with a version that strives to be more sensitive and tailored to the circumstances specific to the city.
Those who achieve the highest scores on the Houston Index — the chronically homeless — qualify for what is known as permanent supportive housing. “Supporting” means that in addition to receiving housing, the person will receive money for rent, utilities, bus fees, and other necessities, and will be assigned a case manager who will assist with access to employment programs, psychiatric, and substance abuse treatment.
There is no question that homes first get people off the street. Critics question whether it works better than programs that mandate substance abuse treatment or other behavioral interventions to improve the long-term health of chronically homeless individuals. Some skeptics argue that, in a universe of limited resources such as vouchers, prioritizing the most challenging cases can lead to adverse consequences for housing insecure families, families in substandard housing and others in need of assistance. But these arguments miss the point of housing first, proponents respond.
“The homeless guy on the doorstep who spits on you when you leave your house and always spits out Revelations is arguably the least likable character in the world, so you may not like paying to house him,” Ms. Parker says the former mayor. “But you can’t complain that he’s on the street and you can’t complain that you can get him off.”
Economists disagree on how the cost of housing should be charged to taxpayers first. Estimates point to significant savings — from $4,800 to more than $60,000 per person per year in supportive housing. But proponents argue that homelessness reduction programs shouldn’t be measured by whether they save taxpayers money, especially given that government subsidies are heavily targeted at homeowners.