Sitting in one of the many meetings addressing homelessness in Utah that I have the honor of participating in, I reached a boiling point.
As the group of committed individuals representing multiple service providers, advocates and stakeholders sought to address the needs of 200 or so people who will lose access to shelter on April 15 (when the temporary winter overflow shelters close) it became clear to me that a lack of affordable housing and case managers for people who need more than just rental assistance is putting the lives of desperately poor people in jeopardy.
The conversation covered lots of ground, but eventually came down to a question of if and how providers should determine who most needs the few housing resources available, and which funding streams will help them access that housing.
Which is also the point I realized that legislators, who regularly assert that they won’t pick winners and losers, are absolutely picking winners and losers in the high stakes world of affordable housing.
Legislators may rely on our service providers to make the final determinations as to who gets their basic human needs met, but the funding priorities they set each session are one of the primary reasons such decisions must be made. There is no justification for forcing people living in abject poverty to wait for providers to make these kinds of decisions on their behalf.
Most everyone involved in homeless services knows exactly what is needed to make experiences of homelessness brief, rare and non-recurring: deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing, case managers to help people stay housed and emergency shelter to keep people safe and warm while we wait for appropriate housing placements to open up. None of these areas will support a healthy bottom line for a for-profit business, so government must be part of the funding solution.
With government partners, service providers can find creative, less expensive ways to meet some of the need, such as single room occupancy units and repurposed shipping container developments for affordable housing. With government assistance, we can ensure adequate overflow shelter by expanding the capacity of our existing resource centers to handle overflow or designating an unused facility for a year-round emergency shelter, at least until there is enough housing to ensure people flow through the resource centers.
Legislators ask providers to show efficiencies in their services. Few businesses could operate on the shoestrings with which so many of our homeless services work. Somehow, service providers manage to find individuals with appropriate degrees, training and commitment to the cause to be underpaid and overworked case managers. But it isn’t easy to entice people into a career serving people in poverty where the minimum pay will barely keep them above the poverty line themselves, so public and charitable foundations play a role in funding a stable workforce as well.
The Utah Legislature supported the efforts of providers, government representatives, community advocates and many others working together to remodel our homeless services system to better meet the needs of people experiencing homelessness. For the system to function, our state Legislature must continue to prioritize the needs of the poorest in our midst.
It can take a hugely impactful step toward this by funding SB39 Affordable Housing Amendments this session and committing ongoing funding for the wrap-around services needed to ensure those who are finally able to access housing also have the support they need to maintain housing in the face of mental or physical health challenges or substance abuse treatment needs.
Jean Hill
Jean Hill is director of the Office of Life, Justice and Peace of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.
