Compassionate Policy for the Homeless

This essay is meant to lay out the guidelines for an effective and humane policy for dealing with homelessness in America. This is especially poignant given the overwhelming number of people without proper housing in the western United States. The polices in those states have been characterized by three intentions: a) keep transient people outside of the criminal justice system; b) the legalization of drugs; and c) a focus on housing before treatment of addiction or mental illness. While they may not often be articulated, there are core ethical principles driving these policies which are proven false by the poor results seen today. It is imperative that policy makers not fall into the trap of continuing policies that work in theory but not in progress.

The false ethical philosophies driving these policies are:

1. Humans are basically good and only perverted by their circumstances.
2. Liberty can be increased by maximizing freedom apart from responsibility.
3. Penal justice has no proper place in reforming an individual.

The correct ethical philosophies are:

1. Humans are given to immoral behavior without the constraints of society.
2. Liberty is only maximized when both freedom and responsibility are increased.
3. Penal justice creates deterrence, repentance, and restitution.

The policies which result from this proper view of reality will not remove homelessness, mental illness, or drug addiction. That is not possible. However, they will protect the rights of the afflicted, the public, and offer the chance for healing for those that are willing. Proper policy making cannot be engaged in with a utopic outlook. Managing expectations is not a failure - it is the only way to avoid sacrificing the good for the unachievable perfect.

The next step is to identify the possible causes of homelessness. These can be categorized into four categories:

1. Economic Hardship: The individual may face sudden loss of housing, employment, or other opportunities resulting in the loss of cash or lines of credit.
2. Mental Illness: The individual may be suffering from extreme mental illness making them a danger to themselves and others. May be from a refusal to engage in treatment.
3. Substance Abuse: The individual may be engaging in dangerous behavior to fuel substance abuse resulting in the loss of employment, housing, and family support.
4. Societal Alienation: The individual may refuse to engage in societal norms and use panhandling to fuel their transient lifestyle.

There are more specific situations as well as intersecting cases which may addressed later. These include minors who may have run away or been kicked out of their home, veterans, or people suffering physical disability or illness which has bankrupted them.

The primary aim of this policy is that a homeless person enters a social services program as a result of encountering law enforcement. The hope is that the service they receive is successful, but as stated above - this will rely on the willingness of the individual. The following is a description of how the policy should ideally play out:

1. Law enforcement encounters a person suspected of being homeless. The individual should be detained, their belongings collected and catalogued, and an investigation into the nature of their homelessness conducted. If they can provide evidence of housing for two weeks, the investigation should be terminated.
2. The individual should be charged with transience, and the public prosecutor should gather evidence to present to a court proving homelessness and its cause. This should include interviewing the individual, drug tests, and a psychological examination. The individual should always have an advocate present as either a lawyer or social worker. Investigators should be granted full access to any health records which may assist in this investigation.
3. The public prosecutor should petition the court for a detention order on basis of an individual being in a transient state without evidence of housing. They should present their evidence on the causes of the individual's homelessness and request the court confine the subject to the treatment program until they should meet the requirements of their release. Opposing counsel should be provided with full access as would proceed from any criminal proceeding. Evidence of stable housing for two weeks would be sufficient for release.
4. Should the judge rule in favor of the government, the subject should be entered into at least one of the following:

a) Economic Relief Program - temporary housing, debt reduction training, job search assistance, or relocation assistance.

b) Mental Illness Treatment - in-patient treatment, family support training, and an out-patient transition program.

c) Substance Abuse Recovery - in-patient treatment, family support training, counseling, and out-patient transition program.

d) Societal Reintegration Training - temporary housing, work-release program, public service, and counseling.

The government should rely on non-profit contracting with organizations that have a proven track record and public/private partnerships with businesses prepared to offer employment to vulnerable adults.

The individual should not be released from court supervision until they can prove themselves to be in a sustained state of good physical and mental health with stable housing. Their advocate may request up to three different opinions from psychologists and social workers or provide their own professional opinion.

The detention of an individual suffering from homelessness is not meant as a punishment as much as a statement from their society that it is impermissible for them to continue in this state. A person is unable to fully exercise their rights when they are suffering from mental illness, addiction, or economic hardship. The court may suspend their freedom until they are deemed capable of shouldering the responsibility of such freedom.

Executing this policy would require the state to hire psychologists and social workers, operate special detention areas for the subject during the investigation, operate/contract mental health institutions, operate/contract substance abuse programs, and operate/contract sufficient temporary housing to keep those in the program in a safe environment.

The court should conduct a monthly review of the subject's progress within their programs. Participation should be required for release as well as evidence of stable housing for at least a month following release. A repeated offender may be subject to more stringent evidentiary requirements. Local social services should be mandated to help the individual access any government benefits they are entitled to including Medicaid, Medicare, or Veterans Assistance.

There are policies that may be pursued to prevent someone from becoming homeless, but this essay is focused on stopping people from remaining homeless. It is not a fit state for any person, and the state has a duty to provide an alternative. This alternative must not be optional as someone suffering from homelessness will not be in a place where they have had control over their life in a normal sense. This will breed resistance to change out of fear and learned helplessness. Therefore, the state must intervene to offer them the opportunity to try again without the hard landing they may have become accustomed to.

These policies may seem heavy handed, but they are founded on the principle that a person suffering from homelessness is unable to fully exercise their rights due to their condition. Restricting their freedom temporarily for the sake of greater liberty in the future is a worthwhile aim, and it can be done in a way that prevents government overreach. At the end of the day, either the person can prove they have housing or they can't. If they can't, the state has a duty to step in for the safety of the individual and the public.