Back in the day I worked for a bunch of psychologists who took over failing vocational training programs and transformed them into thriving hives of motivated trainees and future workers. They managed this feat by applying some very basic principles of motivation to program design. In brief:
Payoff: behavior is not repeated without some kind of payoff. Make sure desired behaviors are rewarded.
Incremental Reward Structure: motivation to pursue difficult goals is strengthened when the goal path is sprinkled with mini-payoffs, such as successful completions of tasks (conferring a sense of progress), pride of mastery/accomplishment, meaningful praise, and tangible rewards for meeting intermediate goal-targets.
Doability: tasks must be doable. Aim for moderate challenge. Monitor performance frequently to maintain challenge level (dial back or ramp up, as appropriate).
Consequences: slacking off and violating the rules carry clear consequences, no exceptions.
So how did these principles play out in the training programs? Go here to find out. But this post isn’t about how to apply principles of motivation to education and training. It’s about how to apply principles of motivation to housing the homeless.
I’m all for the “Housing First” approach to homelessness - at least in principle. Problem is, permanent housing doesn’t just appear when and where it’s needed. Besides, no one has the right to permanent housing when and where they want it. Housing demand and supply don’t magically line up everywhere and always. Sometimes you just have to wait for permanent housing and in the meantime settle for temporary shelter.
What is “housing” anyway? For me, housing is a place that provides privacy, protection from the elements, sufficient quiet for restful sleep, and sufficient stability to act on long-term goals. That’s it. So when people assert a right to housing, that’s ok with me as long as we understand housing in this bare-bones sense. Of course, a right is not the same as a right-on-demand. As noted before, sometimes you have to wait for your right be be realized, whether it’s medical care, legal representation or housing.
Housing the homeless comes with an added complication: some in the unhoused community don’t want to be housed if they have to pay anything for rent, even if the rent is automatically deducted from a government benefit. That is, they would rather receive the whole benefit than reserve any of it for housing, the better to pay for other expenses. Consider:
“As a social worker who has worked with the unhoused community in the Bay Area for over 5 years..... I wish people would acknowledge the role substance use plays in all of this. There are a large number of unhoused people in the Bay Area that refuse housing because they do not want to spend even 30% of their SSI/SSDI income on housing. Rather, this money is used on substance use. I think the local media and city leaders need to speak of the homelessness issue is not just an affordable housing issue, but as a substance use issue as well.” - Posted Comment on Berkeleyside November 9, 2020
But isn’t a right’s a right? Wouldn’t people who refuse to pay for housing still have a right to housing? I’d say yes, but only as temporary shelter in a teeny space, such as a single-occupancy-room (SRO), bathroom down the hall. But always with a carrot dangling to upgrade to something bigger, better and permanent if they’re willing to pay for it. And always with the stick of downgrading to a open-floor shelter with less privacy if they don’t transition to rent-based housing within a certain period of time (e.g., six months).
There would also be multiple levels of subsidized housing available for the formerly homeless - each level a bit more appealing than the one below but none so attractive as to disincentivize transitioning to unsubsidized housing for those who are able to afford market-rate rents on their own.
What I’m proposing uses an incremental reward structure to nudge the initially resistant into permanent housing. And because the progression in housing quality requires just a bit more effort and money, the progression feels doable: a moderate challenge but within reach with effort and assistance. Here’s what the first few levels might look like*:
Ideally, these subsidized housing units would be in the same building so the reward value of the larger units would be obvious - and spur a certain amount of envy: another great motivator.
—
* I’m thinking the long-term shelter room would be around 96 square feet (8x12); the Level I studio would be around 120 square feet (10x12) and the Level 2 one-bedroom apartment around 320 square feet (20x12). Unit size would go up from there, to a limit. The Level I minimum rent of $200 is based on 30% of the average SSI benefit in 2019 ($551). When rents are paid by sponsors, such as relatives, a somewhat higher minimum rate would apply. Sponsors would also have to commit to paying at least six months’ rent, ideally in three-month increments.