Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago
|
It does need to be done in a coordinated manner to be most effective. But one of three problems solved by Housing First is removing requirements that recipients of publicly-funded housing be a certain level of stable first. For example, using drugs has frequently been a non-starter, but when you lack the stability of a home, any chance of beating addiction really just disappears for all practical purposes.
Then there are things like Chicago's SRO law, which is actually quite restrictive in who can live in an SRO. You basically have to have a job or be receiving the highest amounts of money that the government gives. SSI recipients, for example, do not receive enough support to qualify for an SRO even if technically they could make the rent payments. And no one can co-sign or sign a promissory note to provide cash assistance (for example if a family couldn't afford to rent a place for a loved one in their own but still wanted to and could help some). And SSI recipients are, by definition, the least likely to be able to functionally support themselves because it means they've never had significant employment. SSI is also set at 75% of the poverty line. I don't know if that's by statute or what, but it's where the top award amount for SSI recipients ends - at 75% if the poverty line. I can't imagine trying to make anything work in that. And then the number actually gets lower if you're homeless, to about half of the poverty line under the theory that if you're not paying rent you don't need the extra money.
Absolutely most housing should be drug-free. But having some housing available for addicts doesn't strike me as crazy, either.