For the first time in a long while, an annual count of homeless people in Utah is showing a sizable increase over the previous year, and while the data aren’t conclusive, they do tend to validate the substantial investment made by state and local authorities to build more shelters and increase services to help people transition to permanent domicile. The numbers also contradict a widely touted notion that Utah has enjoyed unique success in curbing, even ending, homelessness.
The numbers released by the statewide Homeless Management Information System, or HMIS, indicate the overall number of homeless increased by 7 percent last year, while showing an alarming increase of 17 percent among homeless families. The numbers are drawn from a year-round assessment of the use of shelter and transitional housing services, as compared with a separate annual “point-in-time” count of homeless people taken in January that showed a slight decrease. While the results of the surveys seem incompatible, there is ample evidence that the problem persists stubbornly throughout the state.
The reasons are varied, but key among them is a substantial increase in housing costs in Utah’s urban areas. There are families seeking shelter services simply because they’ve been unable to keep up with rent. While the economy has improved and employment numbers increased, there are still large numbers of people whose ability to afford housing is relegated to a paycheck-to-paycheck continuum, easily disrupted by a financial setback. Many people occupying shelters do not present the countenance of impoverishment; they have simply come upon a situation of hardship, and it’s critical that state and local services work hard to make that situation temporary. To that end, the Legislature this year approved an appropriation of a little over $9 million for new shelter facilities and transitional housing services.
The recent count results are a source of frustration in that we have enjoyed a recent history of announcements by civic leaders touting success in curbing homelessness, particularly among the group labeled as chronically homeless. The new numbers suggest that alleged progress is a chimera, belied by the observable fact of large numbers of displaced people using shelters and camping in public parks.
While progress has indeed been made in converting many of those chronically displaced into places of stability, the overall problem remains acute. The committee in charge of spending the newly available money has been apprised of the new numbers, which should give urgency to its efforts. We must make sure we have safe and accessible shelters for those without anywhere else to go. And we must work with sober awareness that many of our neighbors, at any given time, may find themselves in need of assistance to avoid the grim consequences of life without a home.