Homelessness
Homelessness and reentry are essentially two sides of the same coin.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson case, which challenges a city's ability to prohibit sleeping or camping in public spaces. The potential outcome of this case could be a significant step forward for the rights of homeless individuals, potentially redefining the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and offering a glimmer of hope for a more compassionate approach to homelessness. Or not. The Court may decide to do nothing, letting the lower court rulings stand or weigh in narrowly, avoiding the fundamental issue of homelessness and what to do about it. Homelessness does not often come before SCOTUS, so let’s hope the Court contributes to the solution by clarifying some of the general tangential issues related to homelessness.
Homelessness and reentry are essentially two sides of the same coin. Reentry is what happens when homeless individuals rejoin society at large. To be clear, I don’t use the phrase “rejoin society” lightly. Homelessness in the US is a vexing, intractable issue, and leaving it on a path to self-sufficiency requires some hefty lifting – something our country could (and should) undertake.
However, there are flies in the ointment. Political and philosophical disagreements about the root causes and appropriate solutions hinder addressing these complex issues. Some stakeholders, operating from an individualistic perspective, view homelessness as primarily the result of personal choices and actions. They advocate for harsher consequences and stricter requirements to incentivize change. Others, coming from a more systemic or structural viewpoint, see these issues as symptomatic of more extensive societal failures, such as a lack of affordable housing, inadequate mental health and addiction treatment, and the over-policing of marginalized communities. From their perspective, the solution lies in addressing these underlying inequities through policy change, increased social services, and a more compassionate, trauma-informed approach.
These divergent outlooks produce political gridlock and a fragmented, inconsistent approach to tackling homelessness (and reentry). Policymakers and community leaders struggle to find common ground, resulting in piecemeal efforts that fail to make meaningful progress. Nonetheless, progress is possible, and there are bright-spot programs to prove it. However, even when there is political and programmatic will to address these issues, a lack of dedicated resources always stands in the way of significant progress. Providing comprehensive, individualized support to help people successfully transition out of homelessness - such as long-term housing, job training, mental health and addiction treatment, and education - is expensive and resource-intensive. In an era of sharp political and philosophical differences, such as what we’re experiencing nationally and locally, securing the necessary focus, funding, and personnel to implement these solutions at scale is an evergreen challenge.
Furthermore, the existing resources are often siloed and challenging to navigate, with separate systems and requirements for housing, employment, healthcare, and other vital services. This fragmentation can create additional barriers for individuals struggling to rebuild their lives, forcing them to navigate multiple complex bureaucracies to access the support they need. The result is a perfect storm of challenges that can feel insurmountable, both for individuals experiencing homelessness and reentry and for the communities and helpers trying to support them.
Ultimately, genuinely addressing homelessness is not a task for a few but a collective responsibility. We must view these not as isolated issues but as symptoms of more profound dysfunction that demand a coordinated, compassionate, well-resourced response. This requires a willingness from all of us to grapple with the complex root causes of these challenges, such as poverty, racism, trauma, and inequality, and to invest in long-term, holistic solutions that address these underlying factors.
At the same time, we must continue to empower and equip individuals to be the agents of their own transformation, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. By providing people with the tools, support, and belief in their own potential to rebuild their lives, we can foster a sense of hope, dignity, and purpose that can be a powerful catalyst for change.
But here’s the thing. An elephant-sized irony looms over our country's entire social service and social polity eco-space. I’m painting here with a fat brush, aiming for agreeable generalities, so stick with me. Those on the right believe individual responsibility, effort, and the old “up by your bootstraps” lead to achievement. Those on the left believe that leveling the playing field and targeted intervention lead to success. Achievement. Success. For those reentering from homelessness, achievement and success can be measured in terms of (degrees of) self-sufficiency, which is to say, progress toward becoming an independent, self-sufficient citizen in good standing.
An aspiration BOTH right and left can agree on.
So why don’t we? Why the stagnation? If most of us agree, regardless of political or philosophical POV, that being an independent, self-sufficient citizen in good standing is worthwhile, why can’t we FIRST come together on the goal?
Seriously, what’s the real problem?
Onward!
PS – I’ve included a few links to add context to this post. The bottom line is that since the federal government started canvassing the homeless population in 2007 (counting 647,258), the number for 2023 (the most recent count) is 653,104. There have been dips in the intervening years, but overall, intractability.
https://endhomelessness.org
https://www.statista.com/topics/5139/homelessness-in-the-us/#topicOverview
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/12/15/homelessness-in-america-grew-2023/71926354007/