Homelessness Executive Order’s Controversy Overshadows the Positives: Katherine Koh, MD, MSc

Although there are some positive aspects of the executive order “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets,” which focuses on addressing homelessness in the US, Katherine Koh, MD, MSc, a practicing psychiatrist at the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program and Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that these aspects are likely overshadowed by parts of the executive order that are not as helpful in addressing the increased incidence of homelessness in the nation.

This transcript was lightly edited for clarity; captions were auto-generated.

Transcript

Are there any positive aspects to the homelessness executive order?

The executive order mentions funding crisis intervention services, which are mobile teams that support people who are in crisis on the street and can send them to emergency rooms or provide additional support in the moment to people who are suffering. It also mentions expanding mental health and drug courts, which are specialized courts that provide an alternative to incarceration and instead offer court-supervised treatment programs for people with mental illness or substance use disorders. I think that these are laudable initiatives, and I'm very glad the executive order mentions them.

However, I fear they will be overshadowed by the major policy shifts, including the increase in voluntary commitment, the increased encampment removals, the defunding of harm reduction, and the defunding of Housing First. Therefore, these laudable initiatives will not be able to make the gains in supporting people on the street in the way that we need them to.

In addition, separate from the executive order, the Trump administration has also announced plans to fund the National Center for Warrior Independence in [Los Angeles], which helps to house veterans and provide them medical services. Finally, there is the First Lady's Be Best initiative, which provides $1.8 million for youth transitioning from foster care, which has been shown in the literature to be a high-risk time in which people are likely to become homeless. While it's only a small amount of money, I do appreciate that there's attention to this very vulnerable group, because evidence does show that transition points are times in which people are likely to become homeless.

I think paying attention to these transition points and these vulnerable populations can help reduce homelessness. But again, I fear other aspects of the administration's approach will overshadow these other promising initiatives.