Dallas needs alternative housing for chronically homeless and ill

by James K. Waghorne

There has been a big push the last few years to get supportive housing for the 1,000 chronically homeless in Dallas and rightfully so. Housing First has been an issue I have fought for the last 9 years, not just because it is humane but also cost effective for the entire community if it is done right. And doing it right for our entire community seems could be a issue when millions of dollars are up for grabs.

Just over 3 years ago, a new HUD program known as a SafeHaven was started here in Dallas. It is a 24 hour supportive housing program designed for the chronically homeless and ill. Due to the severity of illness (mental illness), HUD only allows 25 people to be in the program at any given time so staff can properly monitor them and also because of safety issues, since a SafeHaven is a “Damp Housing “ model. This means those in the program can drink alcohol and do illicit drugs (supposedly not on property), and they don’t have to take any psych medication. The theory is that with continuous contact with staff “gradualism,” eventually the consumers in the program will start recovery.

It is not supposed to be a program based on “Harm Reduction” because such a program does not believe in recovery. As you can imagine, it certainly wouldn’t be wise to have such a program located within a residential community (apartment complex with families). The inherent dangers are just too much and also it violates the spirit of privacy HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).

Doing a program such as this the right way provides the consumers with full human dignity and also makes our community a better and safer place to live.

Three and a half years ago, I, along with three others, wrote the grant for this much-needed program in Dallas and to say I had high hopes for a beaming success story would be an understatement. A success would show our community that Housing First only has a positive impact. Sadly, that has not been the case.

What is it in a person who can watch another individual suffer and die over a fourteen day period, so sick unable to get out of bed to get food and absolutely nothing was ever done? No nurse came by, no ambulance ever called. Nothing. How do you explain to our community that HUD monies were used to provide pornography (cable) to the consumers in the program?

Not supplying adequate security. Cover-up illicit activity and drugs by having staff destroy the evidence. Understaffing so severe that management forced those who work there to falsify their time to make it look like only forty hours per week was being performed. Knowingly putting a self-admitted pedophile in the program located in an apartment complex with access to children. (The individual did have contact with children, and this was hidden from the parents). It goes on and on and on. Certainly not fair to anyone, consumers or our community, and the biggest question is how those in charge are getting away with it? Because they are a state agency, they can get away with abuse and neglect?

Does having political connections mean that individuals can take the money and do it wrong for everyone? It just might in this case.

And one wonders why advocates have such a hard time fighting against NIMBYism.

James K Waghorne --Dallas Homeless Neighborhood Association