|
|
Social services cause homelessness. It's a bold claim to be sure, probably one worth backing up with some evidence. Don't believe me? I'll prove it.
A department of Housing and Urban Development study found that between October 1st, 2007 and September 30th, 2008 the number of people in homeless families increased by 9% throughout the country. Over that same period of time, we invested in social service programs designed to help the homeless.
There. Social services cause homelessness. Fact.
If you read the above with skepticism, then good, you've caught me. The fact that we have social service organizations and homelessness increasing over the same period says nothing about causation. Now that we are on the same page that one cannot simply assert that the presence of social services causes an increase in homelessness, let's examine the opposite.
Last week, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) released a report stating that homelessness decreased over the two year period between January 2007 and January 2009 by 38%. I won't examine the validity of the report's claim regarding the decrease in homelessness as this week's Inforum featured article addresses this very issue. Instead, I am going to dispute LAHSA's claim that, assuming homelessness did decrease over a two-year period, the decrease in homelessness is the result of LAHSA's efforts. In a press release, LAHSA claims "the decrease reflects a combination of increased focus on homelessness by Los Angeles City and County leaders, investments in housing and innovative programs, and a strong network of agencies focused on ending homelessness."
Now, I'm not going to say LAHSA's efforts didn't decrease homelessness. I don't know what, if any, of the variation reported in the change in the Los Angeles homeless population is due to LAHSA's efforts. Based on the information provided in the 2009 homeless count report, there is nothing that supports the conclusion that actions taken by LAHSA contributed to the decline in homelessness.
Let's be very clear here. The report is an attempt to tally the number of homeless person's living in LAHSA's homeless providing coverage area. That's it. It is not a study of how people that were previously homeless secured housing. So how can LAHSA make the claim that "the decrease reflects a combination of increased focus on homelessness by Los Angeles City and County leaders..."? It can't.
My colleague Michael Gechter at Idealistics equates LAHSA's assertion that correlation equals causation to the idea that firefighters must cause fires, since anytime there is a fire, a firefighter is there. Obviously firefighters don't cause fires; it is equally ambiguous whether or not LAHSA's efforts led to a decline in the homeless population.
I understand the temptation to take credit for trends we may or may not have anything to do with. All of us in social services are faced with such temptation. We deal with macro issues like homelessness, poverty, crime, health, etc. Just because we work on these issues, does not mean we necessarily impact them. That is why it is important for us to be honest about evaluating the work we do. We cannot simply say we work on homelessness, and homelessness is decreasing, therefore what we are doing is working.
LAHSA was eager to take credit for a curiously inexplicable decline in homelessness. Are they prepared to take blame for an increase, should one occur? I doubt it.
(Photo by University of Denver)