The Housing First approach to ending homelessness is based on the principle that housing is a basic right and that therefore all homeless individuals should be provided with permanent housing. Yeah, easier said than done. We have issues of cost, space, and incentives.

For individuals without children, one way to address cost and space is by going prefab single-room occupancy units (SROs) and studios, small enough to be transported by truck and stackable for multi-story buildings. For incentives, you have a two-tier system:  teeny SRO (8x10, with communal bath) and tiny studio (8x20, own bath and kitchenette).  The studio apartments would be reserved for individuals who could pay towards rent via earnings, savings, or government benefits. Qualifying for the larger units would encourage (i.e., incentivize) individuals, not otherwise inclined,  to apply for benefits or seek some sort of gig. Support staff would help with benefit applications and/or refer to job placement services.

What does this actually mean, though? That permanent housing be available at the snap of one's fingers, anywhere in the US? Not realistic. Maybe in Finland, but not here. There is no basic right to live in the community of one's choice. Small town USA is off the hook here.

So I'm mainly talking about big cities and their environs, like the San Francisco Bay Area. And, contrary to some Housing First advocates in Europe, I don't think permanent housing should be made available within a week or two upon request. That might encourage some of the transiently homeless to settle for a tolerable but suboptimal living arrangement. Temporary shelters and bus tickets are sometimes a better way to help people.

I'm actually envisioning a process where individuals initially stay in temporary shelters and eventually work their way up to permanent teeny-tiny housing, with support services available every step of the way.  Some residents would likely stay in permanent subsidized housing for the rest of their lives, but these units are so small that many (especially the younger and less disabled) would eventually leave for more spacious living arrangements. Others would never 'graduate' to permanent subsidized housing in the first place, having already found other ways to get off the street.

Here's the basic hierarchy of accommodations:

  1. Night shelter (daily pm check-in and am check-out)
  2. Short-term shelter (up to a week stay)
  3. Navigation Center (two beds to a cubicle; up to six month stay; here’s an example)
  4. SRO unit (permanent, for those unwilling or unable to pay towards rent, or on waiting list for studio)
  5. Studio apartment (permanent, contingent on paying sliding scale rent, deducted automatically from earnings, savings, and/or government benefits; if cease paying rent, return to SRO).

Residents in all the above would be able to bring their pets, store their belongings, and have access to showers and laundry facilities. Those in relationships could share a Navigation Center cubicle or petition to have adjacent SROs/studios. Consistent with the Housing First principle of self-determination, what permanent housing residents do within the confines of their own rooms is up to them: whether they use drugs, sleep all day, or have a roommate, that's their choice.

Now here's the tough love part: assuming some sort of accommodation is available, homeless individuals would not be allowed to camp or sleep overnight in public spaces. That means no sidewalks, doorways, or parks.

This is the end of the Housing First series. For more, see: Housing First! An Approach to Homelessness, Part I, Housing First! An Approach to Homelessness, Part II: How They Do It in Europe, Housing First! An Approach to Homelessness, Part III: Consider San Francisco, and Housing First! An Approach to Homelessness, Part IV: Residential Hotels.