Expanding on the New York Times Piece
I am deeply grateful to Aidan Gardiner & the New York Times for this insightful piece on shelter diversion and housing problem solving programs. The depth of their reporting and effort to highlight solutions is remarkable. It’s truly an honor to be included alongside the incredible people who work every day to make an impact.
The article perfectly captures the essence of what we strive for in diversion programs: keeping people housed, anywhere safe and stable. While staying with family is an important option, it’s important to remember that diversion extends beyond that and seeks to support families when they want to host a loved one, not condemn them to support additional household burdens, and to get people out and back into their housing quickly when that is their goal.
Many programs offer a wider range of supports. This can include financial assistance for rent and security deposits to help people relocate if they can find an alternative – to make sure the temporary setbacks are just that, temporary. Additionally, some programs provide direct financial aid to families offering temporary accommodation, or even assist with furnishing or repairing units to create a safe and secure living situation.
Finding creative solutions is key. For instance, in domestic violence situations, programs might help with repairs to windows, locks, or add security measures to allow victims to stay safely with loved ones.
The article rightly highlights the stress of doubling up. However, it’s crucial to remember that shelters, while providing vital temporary refuge, can also be incredibly stressful environments. But another key difference lies in the timeline.
Escaping from shelters and the path back to housing often takes much longer than when living with supports, further compounding the stress. Maintaining employment, sufficient sleep, and managing health becomes significantly more challenging, which in turn can affect a person’s ability to successfully transition into housing when the opportunity arises. Programs often take many months, if not years, even for the most capable shelter occupants.
By focusing on diversion, we aim to empower individuals and families to bridge the gap and re-establish themselves quickly, minimizing the long-term effects of housing insecurity. This is particularly important when considering the impact of shelter on children – such as Ms. Rucker’s on Jayden, who has a lethal risk if forced to sleep without the nebulizer for his chronic lung disease. Many other children with developmental disabilities go without government support, such as headfirst and autism programs, because they are unable and ineffective in shelter environments. As opposed to cousins delighted to play with them, these children are often more isolated and face the constant risk of housing loss.
Diversion & Problem Solving do not always come at the expense of another housed person or family. In the article, the conclusion leaves the reader considering whether a family’s housing option only comes at the expense of another person facing housing loss. While eviction rates are a concern, but they pale in comparison to the vast shortage of affordable housing. The U.S. sees 3.6 million eviction filings annually, while people experiencing homelessness sits around 500,000, many of whom have been experiencing homelessness for multiple years. Clearly, there’s a need for a significant increase in housing options, particularly for low-income people. Diversion programs aren’t a solution that simply displaces others; they’re a crucial step towards a more equitable housing system and enabling people to make temporary options possible.
Thank you once again to the New York Times for bringing this critical issue to light.