Navigating the Homelessness Debate: A Look at a New Executive Order, Denver's Efforts, and How Housed, Working, and Healthy Fits In
Quick Take: Homelessness in America – Different Ways to Tackle a Tough Problem
So, there's a new executive order out called "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets," and it's stirring up a lot of conversation about how we deal with homelessness. This piece will break down what this new order is all about, compare it to what Denver's already doing to help its unhoused neighbors, and show you where awesome groups like Housed, Working, and Healthy fit into the picture. We'll also ask a big question: can big cities really just rely on jails and long-term care places to solve homelessness when those spots are, well, limited? It’s a complex issue with no easy answers, and we're here to explore the different perspectives.
A New Chapter in the Homelessness Discussion: What's the Latest Federal Idea?
You know, addressing homelessness has always been a complex challenge, and different folks have different ideas on how to best go about it. For quite a while now, there's been a growing trend, often called "Housing First," where the main idea is to get people into stable housing quickly, and then offer them support for things like mental health or addiction, if they want it. The thinking is, it's tough to deal with other issues if you don't even have a roof over your head.
But now, there's a new executive order from the federal level, "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets," and it's bringing a different philosophy to the table. This order seems to suggest that the visible signs of homelessness – like encampments and open drug use – are primarily issues of public order and safety. It's less about the systemic reasons why someone might be unhoused and more about how to manage the immediate visible challenges on our streets.
So, how does this new order plan to put its ideas into action? It's looking to use federal money as a key tool:
Shifting Grant Money: The order is basically telling federal agencies like HUD (Housing and Urban Development) and HHS (Health and Human Services) to rethink how they give out grants. It wants to give more money to cities and states that are really cracking down on things like public drug use, encampments, and loitering. On the flip side, places that stick strictly to the "Housing First" model – especially those that don't require sobriety or treatment before offering housing – might find their federal funds tightening up. The order mentions wanting to "end support for 'housing first' policies that deprioritize accountability." So, it's about pushing for a different kind of "accountability" through funding.
Rethinking Harm Reduction: Ever heard of "harm reduction"? These are public health efforts, like giving out clean needles to prevent disease or offering overdose reversal medication, that aim to reduce the risks associated with drug use. The executive order, however, sees some of these programs as possibly "facilitating illegal drug use" and is directing agencies like SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) to defund or de-emphasize them. It's a different take on how to address addiction, focusing less on mitigating immediate risks and more on mandatory pathways to recovery.
More Focus on Involuntary Commitment: The order also talks about using involuntary civil commitment more often. This is where someone might be legally compelled into treatment or an institution if they're deemed a risk to themselves or others due to serious mental illness or addiction. To make this easier, the order wants the Attorney General to look into rolling back past court rulings (judicial precedents) and ending certain legal agreements (consent decrees) that might currently limit how cities can do this. It's about removing potential legal hurdles for a more assertive approach to getting people into facilities.
Accountability and Data Sharing: Lastly, the order wants to see more "accountability" in homelessness programs, potentially linking funding to things like treatment participation and public safety outcomes. It also suggests that health data from these programs could be shared with law enforcement, where legally permitted. This could be a game-changer for how programs operate and how individuals might view seeking help.
In a nutshell, this executive order is pushing for a big philosophical shift: moving from what some see as a more supportive, long-term housing strategy to one that emphasizes immediate public order, enforcement, and mandatory treatment, often within institutional settings.
Denver's Own Story: A Different Approach in Motion
Here in Denver, we've been on a path that, in many ways, looks pretty different from what this new executive order is suggesting. Our city has generally embraced that "Housing First" idea, coupled with "harm reduction" strategies, as key ways to tackle homelessness. Mayor Mike Johnston's administration, for example, has put a lot of energy into initiatives like "All in Mile High," aiming to get folks off the streets and into various forms of stable housing, with optional support services readily available. The belief here is that once someone has a stable place to live, it's much easier for them to address other complex challenges like mental health or addiction.
But it hasn't been a straight road, and Denver's approach has definitely faced its own set of challenges and legal skirmishes, which really highlight the nuances of this whole debate:
The Lyall Settlement: Back in 2016, Denver got hit with a lawsuit (Lyall et al. v. City and County of Denver) because of how it was handling encampment cleanups and sometimes seizing personal property. The result was a settlement – basically a court-approved agreement, or consent decree – that laid out specific rules. For example, the city usually has to give seven days' notice for big cleanups and 48 hours' notice before moving someone's personal stuff. This kind of agreement is exactly what the new executive order is talking about when it says it wants to "end consent decrees" that limit how cities can manage homeless populations. It shows how legal agreements can create specific procedures that some might see as limiting direct action.
Ongoing Legal Debates on Camping Bans: Yeah, Denver has an urban camping ban. But enforcing it can be tricky and often leads to legal questions. Across Colorado, groups like the ACLU have been active, like in their lawsuit challenging Boulder's "Blanket Ban." While a recent Supreme Court decision (Grants Pass v. Johnson) made it harder to argue against camping bans based on the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), groups in Colorado are still fighting similar battles under the Colorado Constitution, arguing that our state's laws might offer stronger protections for people who are unhoused, especially if there aren't enough shelter beds. These legal back-and-forths show that there's an ongoing discussion about individual rights versus public order, which is central to the new executive order's aims.
A Different Philosophy at Play: So, Denver's general lean towards voluntary engagement, offering housing as a low-barrier first step, and supporting harm reduction programs really represents a different philosophical stance compared to the executive order's push for more mandatory treatment and enforcement. This difference could mean that Denver might face tricky situations regarding federal funding if it continues its current path, illustrating the tension between local autonomy and federal directives.
Housed, Working, and Healthy: Building Bridges to Self-Sufficiency
In the midst of these policy debates, it's really important to look at organizations on the ground that are doing tangible work to help people. Housed, Working, and Healthy (HWH) is a fantastic example right here in Denver. This non-profit is all about helping folks move beyond housing instability by giving them the tools and support they need to become self-sufficient.
Here’s how HWH fits into the bigger picture:
It's About More Than Just a Roof: HWH understands that simply having a place to sleep isn't always enough. They take a holistic approach, which means they look at the whole person. They partner with other community groups to help individuals find housing, and critically, they offer mental health support – recognizing that these challenges often go hand-in-hand with housing instability.
Skills for the Future: A core part of HWH's program is top-notch culinary skills training. By providing marketable skills and certifications, they're not just offering a handout; they're offering a hand up to stable employment and financial independence. This focus on long-term career pathways is key to breaking the cycle of homelessness.
Job Placement and Ongoing Support: HWH doesn't just train people and then wish them luck. They actively help with job placement and continue to support their students even after graduation. They track success at 12 and 18 months, showing a real commitment to making sure people stay housed, stay employed, and stay healthy.
When you think about the executive order's emphasis on accountability and getting people off the streets, HWH offers a compelling model. While it’s not strictly "Housing First" in the sense of just providing shelter unconditionally, it absolutely provides housing as a stable platform for growth. More importantly, it empowers individuals through training and support, aiming for true self-sufficiency rather than just moving people from one place to another. It highlights that effective solutions can be both compassionate and outcome-oriented, helping people to become productive members of society through their own hard work, supported by the right resources.
The Big Question: Are Jails and Institutions the Answer?
Now, let's get to a really important point raised by this executive order: can major U.S. cities realistically rely heavily on jails, prisons, and long-term care facilities as the main solutions for homelessness? It’s a huge question, and when you think about it, these resources are simply not endless.
Limited Space: Think about it: our jails and prisons are already often stretched to their limits. Trying to put a significant number of people experiencing homelessness into these facilities would mean they'd quickly become overwhelmed. We're talking about a massive expansion of our correctional system just to accommodate people whose main issue is often a lack of housing, not necessarily violent crime. The infrastructure simply isn't there.
The Cost Factor: Jailing someone or keeping them in a long-term care facility is incredibly expensive. We're talking about high costs for staffing, security, healthcare, and basic necessities. These costs often far outweigh what it would take to provide supportive housing or community-based treatment programs. So, while it might seem like a quick fix, it could end up being a massive financial drain on cities and states, pulling resources away from other essential services, without actually solving the underlying issues.
Ethical and Legal Hurdles: While sometimes involuntary commitment is necessary if someone is a clear danger to themselves or others, expanding it broadly for homelessness raises big ethical and legal questions. People have rights, and compelling someone into an institution without their consent, especially if they don't meet strict legal criteria, is a really sensitive area. It's also worth noting that forced treatment isn't always as effective long-term as when someone voluntarily chooses to get help.
Doesn't Solve the Root Problem: Here’s the kicker: putting someone in jail or an institution doesn’t magically create more affordable housing, make mental health care more accessible, or provide better job opportunities. These are the fundamental issues contributing to homelessness. If someone is released from an institution or jail and still has no job, no housing, and no support system, they’re highly likely to end up back on the streets. It's like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.
Eroding Trust: When the approach to homelessness leans heavily on enforcement and forced measures, it can make people who are unhoused less likely to trust social workers, outreach teams, or voluntary programs. If you're afraid of being arrested or forced into a facility, you might avoid interactions that could actually lead to help. This can push homelessness further underground, making it even harder to connect people with the services they genuinely need.
Moving Forward: Finding What Truly Works
The new executive order definitely signals a different direction in the national conversation about homelessness. While it highlights concerns about public order, we also have to consider the practicalities and the human element. Relying primarily on jails and institutions for homelessness is simply not a sustainable or scalable answer for major U.S. cities; the resources are too limited, and the costs too high, both financially and ethically.
Real, lasting solutions to homelessness often involve a mix of strategies:
More Affordable Housing: We absolutely need more places people can afford to live. It's the most basic building block.
Accessible Support: Making sure people can easily get the mental health care and addiction treatment they need, on their own terms.
Paths to Work: Supporting programs like Housed, Working, and Healthy that empower individuals with skills and jobs, helping them build a stable future.
Community Working Together: Cities, non-profits, businesses – everyone pulling in the same direction to create a network of support.
Organizations like Housed, Working, and Healthy show us that focusing on sustainable housing, meaningful work, and overall well-being is a powerful way to address homelessness. It's about empowering people to break cycles, not just moving them around. As we navigate this complex issue, finding solutions that are both compassionate and truly effective in the long run seems like the most practical and humane path forward.
