THIRD PILLAR
Adopting a True “Housing First” Model in Supportive Housing
While components of “Housing First” can be found in some New York City supportive housing programs, a true “Housing First” model does not exist. With demand for supportive housing exceeding supply, resources are rationed. Further, in New York City, in direct opposition to the philosophy of Housing First, often one must prove they are “housing ready” before they are moved into supportive housing. Applicants are repeatedly rejected for vague reasons like “not having insight into their mental illness.” Rather than accepting eligible applicants who need the highest level of services, providers often cherry-pick people who require fewer services for apartments through an interview process. New York City must change to a true “Housing First” model where providers ensure our most vulnerable neighbors are screened in, not screened out. The best way to meet that objective is to eliminate the supportive housing interview process. Overall, adopting a true Housing First model will create more equitable access to supportive housing for those who are eligible.
Our plan
Commit to further development of supportive housing, safe havens, and stabilization beds
Reduce bureaucratic barriers to supportive housing, safe havens, stabilization beds
End the practice of cherry-picking in supportive housing
Listen to the experts
People who are deemed eligible for supportive housing still are “creamed” out or “cherry-picked” out of supportive housing. We need more supportive housing and no more supportive housing interviews.
Step 1
Commit to further development of supportive housing, safe havens, and stabilization beds
Where we are
Housing is by far the most crucial intervention for homeless New Yorkers. It provides security and has proven benefits for mental and physical health, and ends an individual's homeless experience. Unfortunately, the demand for housing exceeds the supply available, including a lack of both low-barrier, transitional and temporary placements, as well as permanent supportive housing units for formerly homeless single adults. As it stands, there is only one available supportive housing unit for every five people who are eligible. While the City has previously committed to the development of 2,000 new safe haven and stabilization beds, there has been frequent pushback from communities and continued difficulties in the siting process of these units. Since May 2020, the City has opened 1,000 emergency stabilization beds across the city to provide quicker access to low-barrier temporary housing for unsheltered adults. Despite this, there are still fewer beds than necessary.
Where we want to be
Elected officials across the City, especially those whose districts or boroughs have high rates of street homelessness and low numbers of safe havens, stabilization beds, and supportive housing units, must commit to opening more projects in their districts. Affluent neighborhoods that have lower levels of affordable housing must lead the development of supportive housing as well. These options are much preferable to traditional shelters to persons living on the streets - a report from the New York Times showed that people were more than twice as likely to stay in stabilization beds than in shelters. Rates of accepting housing are even higher. To ensure people feel safe moving into supportive housing, newly constructed supportive housing units must not be shared; rather, they must be studio and one-bedroom apartments meant for single adults. Candidates should begin proactively identifying sites prior to taking office, as the production or development of the units can often take several years. Candidates should explore the opportunity for creating housing using hotels and office space, but must ensure that the spaces are adequate and safe for people to live in, including private bathrooms and kitchens. Candidates must proactively engage constituents in the siting process to allow for open communication and to avoid facing a NIMBY narrative associated with supportive housing. While it is politically safer to open facilities for families with children, elected officials need to prioritize units for single adults with mental illness or substance use disorders, where the demand for housing is highest.
Step 2
Reduce bureaucratic barriers to supportive housing, safe havens, stabilization beds
Where we are
The majority of safe havens and supportive housing units require individuals to be “chronically homeless” if they are to be eligible for placement, a standard that has evolved from the need to ration scarce supportive housing units. While units established with federal guidelines must adhere to federal guidelines, oftentimes the City-funded units unnecessarily use federal guidelines as well, missing an opportunity to reduce bureaucracy. Further, providers often create additional barriers to accessing City-funded transitional and supportive housing through explicit or implicit expectations of engagement in substance use or mental health-related treatment when they deem it “necessary”.
Where we want to be
City-funded transitional and supportive housing should not require proof of long-term homelessness if an individual meets other placement criteria including a diagnosis of a mental illness and/or a substance use disorder. The City also must commit to a true “Housing First” model and eliminate other bureaucratic barriers to both transitional and supportive housing, including conditional requirements such as engagement in mental health or substance use treatment, understanding that housing is the most important stabilizing service in an individual’s treatment or recovery. Elected officials must use their power and platform to challenge supportive housing provider’s narrative that people are “service resistant” by acknowledging that current services have been developed in a way that are “person resistant” because they do not follow a true Housing First approach.
Step 3
End the practice of cherry-picking in supportive housing
Where we are
Despite the development of coordinated entry systems for the purpose of assessing and prioritizing housing for homeless New Yorkers, data obtained by the Safety Net Project at the Urban Justice Center shows that supportive housing providers often “cream” or “cherry-pick” who can live in their buildings. Given the choice, supportive housing providers tend to pick the applicant who shows they will need the lowest level of care and will be the “easiest” tenant, thus leaving those with the highest level of needs in shelters or on the streets. This practice undermines a true “Housing First” model, where tenants are “screened in” rather than “screened out.”
Where we want to be
While the easiest solution to this practice is to ensure there are enough supportive housing units for all who need them, until capacity is significantly increased, elected officials can work to ensure prioritization of high-needs and most at-risk individuals. The quickest way to address cherry-picking is to eliminate the interview process altogether. Simply put, people who are already deemed eligible for supportive housing should not have to interview for a housing unit. In this way, HRA can ensure that it is not possible for cherry-picking to occur. Another way, albeit a less powerful way to do this, is holding providers accountable through passing Intro 147, which would ensure the City can “track and make public detailed statistics about providers, applicants, and rejections.”