Congress could fix the problems with federal homeless policy by restructuring federal homeless assistance into a block grant sent to state governments.
Congress could fix the problems with federal homeless policy by restructuring federal homeless assistance into a block grant sent to state governments.
T he federal government stands at a remove from the chaotic street conditions plaguing so many U.S. cities. When confronted with needle-strewn sidewalks and tent encampments, ordinary Americans tend to look first to state and especially local government.
But the federal role in public disorder is not trivial. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distributes billions annually in homelessness funding. There are two problems with how that’s now done. First, too much of the funding bypasses state governments, which are increasingly the real centers of action on homelessness. Second, HUD is overly prescriptive in demanding conformity with the “Housing First” philosophy of rental assistance with no program requirements and no time limits. Congress could fix both these problems by restructuring federal homeless assistance into a block grant sent to state governments.
HUD’s main homelessness program is called the “Continuum of Care,” a term that refers to the hundreds of local organizations through which $3 billion in funding flows. This system was set up three decades ago. It envisioned a more localistic and holistic approach to homelessness than the one we have. Back then, HUD believed in deferring to U.S. communities as they coordinated their homeless service systems and decided where best to direct federal support. Many communities supported programs that prioritized work and sobriety over long-term dependency.
Over time, because of HUD planners’ increasing intolerance of any departure from Housing First, federal homeless policy narrowed in focus and became more top-down. Housing Firsters believe that homelessness is a housing problem, period, that only permanent housing can solve. Those in the Housing First crowd do not consider transitional housing solutions and behavioral interventions that target root cause problems like addiction and unemployment to be true solutions. In fact, they don’t simply believe all this; they know it. Housing First is not a philosophy but a science, according to its proponents.
Housing First took root at HUD under George W. Bush. As its influence intensified during the 2010s, homeless service operators that did not comply with Housing First saw big funding cuts. The number of transitional housing units has dropped by half over the past decade. These shifts had nothing to do with broad-based, community-level support for the idea that the best way to help a fentanyl addict was to provide him his own private apartment to use for the rest of his (abbreviated) life. It had everything to do with an obscure cohort of unelected federal bureaucrats dictating policy to the whole nation, inspired by their conviction that no one had any valid reason to oppose their “evidence-based” policy.
Housing First’s rise is a great illustration of the administrative state in action. As such, ultimate blame lies with Congress. For too long, those Democratic members of the House and Senate who were interested in homelessness had the wrong ideas, and Republican lawmakers simply had no ideas at all. This marriage of ideology and neglect yielded “record high” levels of homelessness. A reassertion of congressional control over homelessness is long overdue.
Legislation that converted the Continuum of Care into a state block grant would strip off HUD planners’ highhanded Housing First requirements. It would also expand state governments’ homelessness policymaking authority. That’s been on the rise, partly due to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, which affirmed the constitutionality of local anti-encampment ordinances. No longer can cities cite federal courts as an excuse for failing to address public outrage over encampments. This places the onus on state governments to force feckless mayors and city councils into action. States that have recently expanded their influence over homelessness policy include Florida, Georgia, Utah, Missouri, Texas, and California.
Another reason for sending homelessness funding to states is the authority they already wield over so many other related areas, such as workforce development, child welfare, cash assistance, addiction, mental health, and housing. Funding dedicated to fixing problems will be easier to braid together with federal homelessness funding if the latter is sent to states rather than local Continua of Care.
The old dreams for a homelessness policy both effective and localistic have not panned out. Mayors have too often proven unable or unwilling to confront the street crisis in their jurisdiction. A new order beckons in which governors take more of a lead role.
The next Congress has big ambitions, complicated by a narrow majority. As always, every issue advocate has his shtick. Lawmakers should prioritize agenda items that achieve both structural and substantive reforms. By restoring federalism and weakening the administrative state, on the one hand, and advancing public order and improving the lives of least fortunate among us, on the other, block-granting homelessness funding would check both those boxes.