We Must Not Abandon Emergency Shelter Programs

Beginning at the federal level and transecting almost every effort to support people experiencing homelessness, the “housing first” model has become the mantra for programs serving the homeless. This policy has filtered down to our local service providers in the form of “pathway to housing” criteria initiated by our Homeless Services Center, now known by the more mission centric title “Housing Matters”. The universal adoption of this “housing transitional” policy means that virtually every dollar appropriated for programs designed to assist people experiencing homelessness is now evaluated on the basis of how each dollar supports transition into permanent housing. More troubling yet and the focus of this article, is the effect this programmatic dogma continues to have in severely reducing or completely abandoning the creation of emergency shelters simply because that do not conveniently fit into the new policy guidelines.

According to the 2019 Homeless Census and Survey, there are approximately 2,000 men, women and children unsheltered in Santa Cruz County every night. Yet in the entire county there are fewer than 700 shelter beds available. Of these, less than 200 can be accurately described as “emergency” short term shelter spaces. And here let me draw the critical distinction between “shelter” and “housing”. Even the most ambitious housing programs can only hope to successfully house even a fraction of our HUD defined homeless population. In Santa Cruz, the 180/2020 program has housed well in excess of 800 individuals during the several years of its existence. A fine thing, but what of the other 90% of people experiencing homelessness who don’t qualify for such a program and yet have a continuing, nightly need for safe shelter? And here’s my point. The finite financial resources now available under current state and federal policy are being devoted primarily and as a matter of policy to “housing”. Where are the programs that build shelter space capacity to accommodate the vast majority of our homeless population, many of whom are unsheltered primarily because of the lack of affordable housing? To understand the situation in more detail, I offer this structural paradigm as a baseline for why emergency shelter remains a critical need.

The 2000 or so unsheltered people in our county (more than 900 of whom identify as residents of the City of Santa Cruz) can be roughly grouped into three categories. One third of those experiencing homelessness present with physical or mental challenges that can only be effectively addressed by increased public health and behavioral health services provided by the county. Another full third are those homeless individuals who are so distrustful of institutions and/or institutional programs that they chose not to access government sponsored emergency shelter programs of any kind. The remaining third are comprised of those homeless individuals who are employed and who are diligently pursuing lifestyle alternatives that will allow them to transition into permanent or supportive housing. It is important to note that a quarter of all unsheltered women and men are employed, but are employed as very low wage workers who must often make the choice between food and shelter. This significant segment of our homeless population, over 70% of whom were residents of Santa Cruz or Santa Cruz County at the time they became homeless, would clearly benefit from an expanded emergency sheltering system. Such a system would have a stated mission to provide working and transition seeking unsheltered individuals with the opportunity to work, to save, to rest and to prepare for a transition of their choosing, be it housing in this area or elsewhere. If we are serious about creating programs that can have a significant impact on homelessness, as we are so often heard to say, then a full commitment to emergency sheltering as an integral part of our overall strategy must be made. Sadly and to my mind wrongheadedly, this viable and practical option is being given short shrift when it is being consider at all. As this paradigm clearly illustrates, housing first models alone do not, and cannot, address the varied and distinct needs of individuals within the homeless community and this is precisely why “housing first” models are structurally unsound.

There are many men and women of good will who believe that a “housing first” model is the best hope for raising people out of homelessness and poverty and my words should not be taken to demean those good faith efforts. But in our rush to house as the endgame, we must not abandon the vision of creating safe shelter space as a fundamental part of a holistic approach to creating positive housing outcomes for people experiencing homelessness. In my opinion, the human and societal cost of turning our backs on emergency sheltering is more than a mistaken policy; it is an opportunity missed to make a real difference in people’s lives.