Diverging Approaches to Homelessness: Concerns Over Funding and Civil Commitment
Recent federal data indicates that over 653,000 people experience homelessness on any given night in the United States, with a notable portion living unsheltered on the streets. This issue is becoming increasingly politicized,with differing views on the best course of action.
A key point of contention is funding for programs addressing addiction and mental health, services crucial for many experiencing homelessness.Republicans in congress have reduced Medicaid funding by approximately $900 billion,impacting access to these vital treatments.The Trump administration, according to NPR sources, expressed concern that federal funds allocated by Democrats to approaches like ”housing first” subsidies and “harm reduction” programs represent wasteful spending. A recent executive order from the Trump administration aims to redirect these funds, with officials suggesting a belief that existing resources can be utilized more effectively. A senior White House official, speaking anonymously, stated, “Honestly, we think we can solve this without more money,” emphasizing a focus on accountability and efficient use of federal dollars.
However,some state legislators disagree with this approach. Oregon State Representative Kropf, a proponent of Oregon’s recently expanded civil commitment law, highlights the need for substantial investment in infrastructure to support such legislation. Oregon has already allocated $65 million for new residential facilities to accommodate individuals potentially subject to involuntary commitment. Kropf raises a critical question: “if we’re going to change the standard, do we have the ability to execute on that standard and make sure people get the services thay need?”
Experts in the field echo this concern. Minkoff, a specialist in institutionalization, points out the high cost of treating individuals with severe addiction and mental illness, noting their complex medical needs and the necessity of ongoing supportive housing to prevent relapse and return to homelessness. He argues, “We need more resources as it is indeed,” emphasizing the vulnerability of this population even after stabilization.
Even advocates who supported expanding civil commitment standards,like Thompson,express reservations about the Trump administration’s executive order.While she believes Oregon’s law is carefully designed with time limitations on hospitalization, she fears other states may utilize expanded civil commitment as a means of simply removing homeless individuals from public view. She voiced concern that the approach could be seen as devaluing the lives of those struggling with addiction and mental illness,stating,”It can be used for good or bad. It can be used to help or to harm.”
Both supporters and critics of expanding civil commitment acknowledge that the success of these policies hinges on the specifics of each state’s implementation. The White House official maintains confidence that the executive order will be implemented in a way that both addresses homelessness and protects individual rights.
