Housing First initiatives may not be best

Fighting homelessness requires flexible solutions,

There has been a fair bit of media coverage lately of the new federal funding criteria for homelessness and the negotiations with Quebec. The feds decided to convert what had been a generalist funding envelope to one which strictly focuses on the Housing First model.

The Housing First approach is based on moving homeless persons into permanent housing as the first step to recovery. Housing is not conditional on sobriety or abstinence, nor is program participation mandatory.

The five principles of the Housing First approach are:

1. Quick access to permanent housing with no housing readiness requirements.

2. Recipients are able to choose the type of housing and services they wish to receive.

3. A focus on after- housing recovery through voluntary support and services.

4. Individualized options for support tailored to the participant.

5. Integration into the community through participation and engagement.

At first glance, this might seem like a viable solution. However, this shift in funding is a source of great concern for many community organizations. These organizations, which often work on the front lines with homeless men and women, foresee the disappearance of existing programs and services due to changing eligibility requirements.

After extended negotiations, National Assembly resolutions and the usual federal/ provincial back and forth, the conclusion is that 65 per cent of the funds will be allocated to Housing First and the remaining 35 per cent will continue to support existing initiatives.

The upshot is that with only 35 per cent of the funds going to existing projects, many will be cut and cause greater hardship to those who are already in basic survival mode. Leaving aside the limitations of a one- size- fits- all Housing First model, 65 per cent is clearly insufficient to achieve our goal of providing stable, affordable housing with support to Montreal’s homeless men and women.

For years, community organizations have been crying out for more funding to adequately house the homeless. But focusing on the percentage of funds going to this or that priority misses the key point: The two levels of government are each developing action plans and strategies but mostly in isolation from each other, not to mention the municipality.

The absence of a co- ordinated approach that has as its objective to end chronic homelessness means that we will not end chronic homelessness.

A 10- year co- ordinated plan, endorsed and supported by federal, provincial and municipal governments that, over time, shifts service priorities from shelter to housing promises greater impact and potential for real change than the more- or- less unco- ordinated approaches today. More attention paid to prevention can reduce the number of people who find themselves homeless in the first place.

While we can likely never stop all the bad things that act as a catalyst for homelessness, we can change our emergency response from one of shelter to one of rapid assessment and referral. A full 70 to 80 per cent of shelter users are homeless only temporarily and resolve their situation with little help and return to a more normalized life. Only about 20 to 30 per cent of the homeless population will need the kind of support and housing options a proper plan would include.

On March 24, the first ever Census of Montreal’s homeless took place, which will give us a clearer grasp of the magnitude of the problem. Let’s use that as a new starting point for governments to develop a coherent plan together with clear targets and timelines that imagine a day soon when chronic homelessness is in our past.

For years, community organizations have been crying out for more funding to adequately house the homeless.