Right now in every county in this state at least one person, one family, is struggling to stay out of homelessness.
More likely than not, that person and at least one if not several members of that family have jobs, though perhaps they are furloughed at the moment, and chances are the jobs pay less than the wage required to afford housing in their county. That person or family may be struggling to afford rent, rising food costs, transportation expenses, health needs, or all of the above.
The person or family may have accessed one or more of the many critical services provided by the state (some with federal funds as well) from job placement to housing assistance to child care to Medicaid to school meals. They may also be receiving some help through non-profits such as food banks or rental assistance.
The economic downturn has exacerbated the needs. As homeless and related service providers face substantial funding shortfalls for the coming fiscal year, state legislative leaders are also seeking ways to cut state budgets to address the downturn. The combination of more families and individuals in need and less funding at both the non-profit and state levels is a recipe for certain disaster.
At least one part of that recipe, however, could be avoided. Not all state budgets need to be or should be cut. We have billions in reserve which, combined with smart cuts to services that don’t increase vulnerabilities for people already in poverty, could preserve funding for the services that are most needed right now and will help protect individuals and the state from finding ourselves with even more people experiencing homelessness in the future.
Yes, social services are one of the largest portions of our state budget. That isn’t because the budget is bloated, but results from our collective and morally sound decision to render homelessness brief, rare and non-recurring, to help people with substance abuse disorders, to ensure children have full bellies and access to health care so they can learn and grow.
While legislators try to be even-handed in their budget discussions by seeking the same percentage of cuts across all state agencies, now is not the time to make cuts without reference to the impacts. As a first principle, government action should protect the dignity and sanctity of life. Doing so means, at the very least, not making cuts that will force more people to choose between the basic needs of food or shelter, particularly while the state sits on billions of dollars, only a small portion of which would be needed to preserve funding for social services.
Yes, the state could eliminate the $10 million it appropriated for affordable housing to save money. It could cut $1.5 million in general assistance funding in the baseless hope that no new clients will need assistance during the downturn. But in a state that is already woefully short of housing for people with severely limited means and struggling to serve the people experiencing homelessness that we currently see, any short term gain will be quickly wiped out by the long term implications of tightening an already dismal supply of housing and assistance options.
The state invested heavily in homeless services. Decisions about funding in the current crisis could either bolster or destroy that investment. Let’s put people first in our response to the downturn and preserve funding for housing and social services, thereby preserving our efforts to render homelessness brief, rare and non-recurring.
Jean Hill
Jean Hill is director of the Office of Life, Justice and Peace at the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.
