Federal Funding Should Address Structural Causes of Homelessness

This commentary was prepared by staff at the Illinois Public Health Institute, an NNPHI member institute.

Recent federal funding announcements for homelessness assistance programs are more likely to weaken, not strengthen, our country’s efforts to end homelessness. These policies represent a significant change in the federal government’s approach, shifting the blame for homelessness away from socioeconomic factors that drive housing instability onto people experiencing homelessness themselves. The result is a policy that rewards jurisdictions for criminalizing homelessness and promoting institutional solutions to problems that are best solved in the community.

Time and time again, history has taught us that punitive approaches to social problems exacerbate those problems by increasing the vulnerability of already marginalized populations. For example, sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses caused severe racial disparity in legal systems across the country. The result was mass incarceration impacting Black communities with devastating outcomes for individuals and families that will reverberate for decades despite significant steps toward reform. Systems can be broken quickly, but repairing them takes time.

A successful public health approach to ending homelessness takes a systems-level approach that addresses community health, economic mobility, and social cohesion.  We understand that systems change is essential to solving problems that are structural, not individual.

At the same time, it is important to note that we see all people as allies, not opponents, especially those experiencing homelessness themselves. We know that people closest to the problem are closest to the solution. From decades of experience, we have learned that high-impact, trauma-informed interventions are most effective at addressing homelessness at the individual level.

We also understand that communities are healthiest when every member of that community has what they need to thrive.  To end homelessness in our communities, we promote universal access to integrated healthcare; implement person-centered programs that resolve specific needs; and meet people where they are, literally and figuratively.

Housing First is an excellent example of this model. This approach aims to connect people experiencing homelessness with permanent housing, as a platform for individuals to pursue their goals and improve their quality of life. Likewise, we know that street level harm reduction programs not only save lives, but they also engage people in other forms of effective care.

These approaches stand in marked contrast to recent funding decisions, which suggests required participation in interventions with penalties that may include incarceration for those who refuse to comply. The philosophical differences in approach between public health’s efforts to address homelessness and that of the recent funding decisions are clear. The consequences cannot be understated: a prison sentence does not cure homelessness, but housing does.