Group homes may be solution for homeless

The homeless population will expand to fill the space available to them. The same can be said for the food they are offered.

In this case, prudence is as much a virtue as charity. We should never hope to serve as “enablers” to aggravate the problems of the homeless. As we offer them charity, we must also strive to prepare an endgame for them. That is, homes for the homeless.

Obviously, we cannot afford to give away an endless number of houses, at least not without such strings attached as to radically alter the nature of our society. We must be prepared to offer them something to which they might willingly commit and which might be financially sustainable.

The infant Christian society, the “church,” developed monastic houses as early as the mid-200s A.D. As recently as the 1960s, secular communes gained popularity, some of which remain active today.

Community houses might be religious or secular, but successful ones will have certain characteristics.

1) Regardless of their initial funding, their capitalization, they must pay their own way, either as rent or as mortgage, by earning some kind of income.

2) Members of the house must be committed to a common set of values, whether to a religious faith, to a secular 12-Step program, or a military heritage.

3) Applicants for membership might merely visit the house briefly, but must eventually commit to a long term of residence, possibly for life.

4) The house will enforce rules of discipline peculiar to its ideals and its needs. Miscreants cannot remain. A hierarchy of authority should arise within the house, but with the support of outside authorities.

New houses for the homeless might be established by our variety of churches, by our many secular agencies (such as Alcoholics Anonymous) and even by state or local governments. These founders can tailor their programs to support their values and intentions.

Unfortunately, many of our homeless are sustained with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) out of the U.S. Treasury’s general fund (not out of the Social Security trust). The Social Security Administration will not penalize the homeless if they use SSI for shared living expenses, even though some homeless people may be reticent to give up their independence (such as it is).

Ideally, a group home or communal house should become self-sustaining with some kind of industry peculiar to their collective talents. Eventually, SSI should cease, or the individual’s funds might be held (or accumulated) as long-term savings. The Social Security Administration might need to tweak its management of SSI in order to make an endgame possible for the homeless.

For centuries, monastic houses have prospered and grown, wielding power and influence, while they offered shelter and fellowship to thousands of capable people. It works! Some of them have built mighty networks. In Northwest Arkansas we have the resources and the ingenuity to address our own homeless problem and to lead the nation in the effort. For those with vision, opportunity knocks. WILLIAM L. HARRIS Fayetteville