Homelessness, Addiction, and a Different Solution
Owen Sound has been struggling with homelessness and
addiction for years.
Yet despite increasing costs, growing numbers of people
living on our streets, rising demands on police and emergency services, and
growing frustration among residents and businesses, the problem remains.
So, the question is simple: “Are we really doing
everything we can?”
There is growing discussion about approaches that go
beyond simply providing housing — approaches that combine housing and
support with accountability, behavioural expectations and incentives for
progress.
One advocate for this type of approach is Michael
Shellenberger, who has conducted extensive research and interviews on
homelessness and addiction, particularly in California.
Shellenberger challenges the idea that providing
permanent housing should necessarily be the end point of the process for
everyone experiencing chronic homelessness and severe addiction. His
argument is that, for some individuals, housing alone may not address the
underlying addiction, mental-health or behavioural issues contributing to
chronic homelessness.
Instead, he points to a more structured, progressive
approach that incorporates principles of Contingency Management.
What is Contingency Management?
The basic principle is straightforward:
Do X — receive Y.
Contingency Management is a recognized behavioural
intervention in which desired behaviours are reinforced with immediate,
tangible rewards. It has substantial evidence behind it, particularly in the
treatment of stimulant-use disorders.
Applied more broadly to homelessness and recovery, the
concept could mean creating a structured pathway in which positive
behaviour, participation in treatment and measurable progress lead to
greater privileges, better accommodation and greater independence.
The progression might look something like this:
1. Street homelessness
↓
2. Clean, safe shelter
↓
3. Treatment, recovery and behavioural expectations
↓
4. Rewards and privileges for measurable progress
↓
5. Better accommodation and greater independence
↓
6. Employment, stability and permanent housing
Under this program, everyone gets shelter unconditionally, and everyone has
an opportunity to improve their situation through negotiated behavioural changes.
For example, Shellenberger describes programs in which
a person living in congregate accommodation can earn a private room by
meeting agreed-upon conditions, such as remaining drug-free.
The important distinction is that the objective is not
simply to punish failure. It is to create meaningful incentives for
progress.
Relapse, for example, need not mean being abandoned or
returned to the street. A person could temporarily lose a privilege or move
to a more structured level of accommodation while continuing to receive
treatment and support.
The goal is to combine compassion with accountability —
and assistance with responsibility.
This isn't an argument against Housing First
It is important to be fair.
Housing First has substantial evidence behind it, including major
Canadian research demonstrating improvements in housing stability for people
experiencing homelessness and mental illness. Recent Canadian research also
continues to examine how Housing First can be integrated with mental-health
and addiction services.
But acknowledging the evidence supporting Housing First
does not mean we should stop asking whether additional approaches could work
better for particular people or circumstances.
Indeed, research on contingency management has found
meaningful reductions in substance use among people experiencing
homelessness, although much of that evidence comes from U.S. studies and
questions remain about long-term effects.
That suggests a more useful question for Owen Sound:
“Why should we limit ourselves to one model when there are multiple
evidence-based approaches that could be combined and adapted to the needs of
different individuals?”
Candidates — we want your views
We encourage all candidates for Owen Sound City Council
to investigate these approaches for themselves. Search YouTube for
“Michael Shellenberger homelessness” and watch some of his interviews
and presentations for a different perspective.
Then tell Owen Sound residents what you think.
We are not asking candidates to endorse Shellenberger.
We are asking candidates to carefully consider all of
the alternatives because what we’ve been doing has not worked and visually
the problem has worsened over the past 4 years.
Owen Sound needs measurable results.
Questions for Candidates
There is a distinctive difference between the two
strategies that have proven to be effective. Housing First provides all
homeless with a private room unconditionally. and addiction are among the
most visible and pressing issues facing Owen Sound. Contingency Management
gives all homeless a shelter bed and an opportunity to earn a private room
through behavioral changes.
Taxpayers are paying for the consequences of the
current ineffective strategy, through municipal services, policing and other
public expenditures. So, we
believe candidates owe voters clear answers. Now that you’ve watched
Shellenberger’s research videos tell voters:
1.
Do you endorse the ‘Carrot & Stick’
approach that Shellenberger advocates where rewards are provided for
positive behavioral changes and taken away when behaviour relapses. Or do
you believe that “Housing First” is the best strategy for Owen
Sound, or do you have a different solution that you believe will be more
effective than either of these strategies?
2.
Regardless of whether you favour “Housing
First” or “Contingency Management”, shelter beds and rooms cost money and
you can’t expect the County to cover the full cost. How will you pay for the
solutions you propose? Tax Increases? Right-Reducing the reliance on
consultants? Introducing efficiencies at city hall, Right-sizing the
management Team? Voters need to know where the money will come from.
If you served on Owen Sound Council in the past, we
encourage you to also address the obvious question: exactly what you did
on council to address this problem. For example, did you table a motion
aimed at changing the status quo? If not, why not?
Remember, the Mayor has only one vote and you don't
have to be Mayor to provide leadership. As we like to say: A strong leader
can “drive the train from the caboose.”
If you believe change is needed when it comes to Owen Sound’s
homeless problem, in your response, tell voters how you will build
consensus, challenge the status quo and work with your colleagues and other
levels of government to actually get something done.
Homelessness and addiction will not be solved by
slogans, finger-pointing, pretending there is only one possible approach, or
saying it’s the County’s problem. We need ideas. We need accountability.
And we need results.
COST will publish all responses on its website so Owen
Sound voters can see what candidates are proposing to aggressively address
Owen Sound’s homeless problems.
This election should not be about promises.
…. It should be about solutions.
You can read how the candiates responded to these questions here: Candidates on Homelessness