Housing First: When the desire to fix all the things becomes a failure to fix any

 Well-meaning people are really good at talking themselves out of doing anything meaningful. Ironic. And all too common.

Let’s think about how to address homelessness, for example. We say, “I see that people are homeless. I want to fix it. How do I do that?” Well, the issue is complex, and many factors need to be considered. “Oh, okay. What factors?” You really need to think about mental health care. A lot of people experiencing homelessness deal with mental health issues. “Yeah, that makes sense, so I guess we could…” And drug addiction is a major problem among the unhoused. Drug treatment programs are really important to consider. “Oh, sure. That tracks. So let’s fund the drug treatment…” Of course the real issue is money management and the poor financial decisions that people made and continue to make keep them in poverty situations. “Well, that’s bad. So let’s create money management classes and then we can …” And they’ll never be able to keep an apartment if they don’t have a job, so they need employment assistance programs to take care of that. “ … um …”

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

And just like that, the desire to fix all the problems becomes a failure to fix any of them. It’s a trap!

What if there were just one thing we could focus on that would filter outward and address the other issues as well? And what if there were data to support focusing on that one thing? And what if the Office of Policy Development and Research for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development had already done a comprehensive study to acquire that data?

Well as it turns out, there is! And there are! And they did!

The “Family Options Study” is massive, and I have only read the executive summaries in the short-term and long-term reports. Here’s the link if you want to dig in - LINK TO STUDY.

The conclusions of the report shine a spotlight on one thing as a focal point for addressing homelessness - housing. Yep, I know. Seems intuitive doesn’t it? The problem is homelessness; the solution is homes. Intuition notwithstanding, having data to back up that feeling is very helpful.

“The 3-year findings lend support for the underlying theoretical model for permanent housing subsidies. The striking impacts of assignment to the SUB group in reducing subsequent stays in shelter and places not meant for human habitation provide support for the view that, for most families, homelessness is a housing affordability problem that can be remedied with permanent housing subsidies without specialized homeless-specific psychosocial services.” (from page xxxiii of the report linked above)

SUB stands for “Priority access to permanent housing subsidy,” the group in the study who were given a subsidy to acquire permanent housing with no other services offered. And the data are “striking.” It is clear that housing-first programs that simply get people into safe, secure living accommodations really do work very well. The data back up what many people intuit; provide housing for the unhoused, and in general they’ll get the rest figured out.

In contrast:

“The short-term findings provided less support for the theoretical model underlying the PBTH intervention. PBTH programs are intended to address the root causes of homelessness by providing social services packaged with housing assistance. The short-term analysis did not provide evidence that assignment to the PBTH intervention achieved that goal.” (from page xxxiii of the report linked above)

PBTH is the abbreviation for “Priority access to project-based temporary housing,” the group in the study who had temporary housing that was contingent upon participation in other provided services. The “short term” results here were three years after the study. Nothing really changes in the “long-term tracking” follow up done five years after that. For a variety of reasons, temporary housing that is tied to participation in social service programs is not as effective as a housing first approach.

And so, back to the well-meaning people who end up doing nothing meaningful - How about we make a data-driven decision here? We all feel big feelings about poverty and homelessness, and our hearts break to the point of despair when we start to list all the factors involved. But if the data show that just simply getting people into homes is effective in addressing all that other stuff as well, maybe we could give that a try.

Beyond the data, I offer my witness. Just about everyone one of my friends experiencing homelessness has said to me that getting into a safe and secure home is priority number one. That, if they could get into a home they could get a good night’s sleep, which would help to ease their anxiety. If they could have a place to shower in the morning, they could present themselves more confidently at a job interview. If they didn’t have to constantly worry about someone stealing their possessions, they wouldn’t have to exist in fight-flight-flee mode all the damn time.

Basically, that if they had a home, they could get the other stuff figured out more easily, accessing the services available more effectively. I am obviously not advocating for complete discontinuance of mental healthcare, drug rehab, job coaching, and so forth. I am advocating for discontinuing those things as prerequisites to being housed. Housing first, then the other stuff in due time.

I know there are conservative think-tanks who claim that “Housing First” programs don’t work. I know there are people who blame unhoused people for their own homelessness and the thought of providing someone a home free of charge deeply offends their ideology. I know that there are well-meaning people who will always ask “whatabout” questions regarding addiction and mental health and all the rest, including for example the question, “Isn’t providing housing for someone is actually just enabling their addiction by giving them a place to use?” - an actual argument I have heard repeatedly through the years.

I know all of that. And yet, beyond the data that show they work and the personal witness I can offer, I have a deeply rooted reason to advocate for housing-first programs. They affirm the inherent worth of human beings. Housing-first programs affirm the dignity and autonomy of people who just need a little help to get a foothold so that they can continue climbing again.

Let’s not fall into the trap of failing to fix anything because we want to fix everything, especially when fixing one thing could very well fix all the rest.

As Long As We Are Dreaming...

TLDR: I think the United Methodist Church should abandon our mission statement.

This week, a few hundred United Methodists are gathering in Calgary, Canada to dream about the future. Which is so cool. The participants were chosen by the bishops, and each was given a set of questions to work on prior to the conference. The questions were all geared toward things that need to be changed in the denomination. Also, so cool. I truly love the spirit of reform in the air!

And so, as long as we are reforming things, how about we go right to the heart of it? 

Since 2000, the official mission statement of the UMC has been to “make disciples,” a phrase that comes from Matthew 28:19. Prior to 2000, the denomination did not have a mission statement. Then in 2008 the phrase, “...for the transformation of the world” was added to the statement. And so at the moment the mission statement, comprising paragraph 120 of the Book of Discipline, reads as follows: The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jeus Christ for the transformation of the world. Local churches and extension ministries of the Church provide the most significant arenas through which disciple-making occurs.

That mission statement arose in the midst of systemic anxiety created by decades of numerical decline. At that time, denominational leadership decided that borrowing strategies from the business world would be the pathway out of that decline, and the adoption of a formal mission statement was a part of that pathway. It was a trend beyond the United Methodist Church, and had been for a couple of decades. (We have never been “early adopters.”)

So, it has been our official mission statement for twenty-six years, and it is high time to ask, “Is it working?”

I appreciate the reform-minded questions that ask, “What should we do differently in order to make disciples of Jesus more effectively?” But the question I want to ask is, “What should we do differently so that we can be the church that God is calling us to be, and does God maybe want us to focus on something other than disciple-making?” It is a new season, a new church is emerging, and maybe the way we talk about our mission should, too.

After all, there are a whole myriad of other options. Matthew 28:19 is just one verse, and there is no need to choose that one over any other. I suspect one reason it was chosen is because it is the verse most directly related to numerical growth, the pressing issue of the day. But there are others. For example, my choice would be the “new commandment” of John 13 - “Love one another.” Can you imagine how different things might be today if, in the year 2000, the United Methodist Church had adopted that as the mission statement?

The mission of the Church is to love people like Jesus loves them.

Isn’t that a breath of fresh air? Of course, it is really hard to make a s.m.a.r.t. goal from that! And how do you develop a strategic plan based on loving your neighbor? If we cannot measure it, how will we know if we are doing it?!?

I don’t know, but maybe we have moved past the season where anxiety about numerical growth governs every decision we make. In a way, the mission to “make disciples” actually adds anxiety into a system already anxious about decline. We are not only still in decline, we are also failing at our mission, which was (ironically) adopted to try to reverse decline! Ahh!

If the simplicity of loving one another isn’t active enough for us, how about Mark 16? The mission of the Church is to go into the world and proclaim the Good News to every creature. Or if we are not limited to the specific words of Jesus, how about 1st Thessalonians 5? The mission of the church is to encourage one another and build each other up. Even the second part of the sentence begun in Matthew 28:19 could be used: The mission of the church is to teach people to obey the commands of Jesus. And whatever happened to the “baptizing them” part of the verse? Why did we decide to skip that? So. Many. Options!

Look, I understand, the “making disciples” statement has historic roots, beyond its year 2000 appearance in the Book of Discipline. After all, the Christian tradition calls that verse the “Great Commission!” (Not that that title is in the Biblical text itself, you understand. It is an editorial heading added to the Gospel. But anyway.) And it is likely so deeply woven into the fabric of our faith that its removal is not an option. 

But it’s the week for the United Methodist Church to dream, and this is one of mine. The last thing I want is to limit what God is calling us to do by sticking to disciple-making as our mission without critically, faithfully, and prayerfully wondering if maybe we should let Jesus handle that part. Which would alleviate the anxiety and free us up to truly reimagine the possibilities for our beloved Methodist movement.