Framing and Narrative Policy Theory: Utah’s Housing First Policy
The Salt Lake Tribune published an article in November of 2021 written by Bethany Rodgers, concerning a report prepared by Utah legislative auditors in that same month, which revealed that the state’s Homeless Services office had received a budget increase of over 600% since 2016. A key point of contention addressed in the report is the State’s “housing first” strategy. The strategy aims to secure a place to live for unhoused individuals before addressing issues like mental health or substance abuse (Rodgers, Utah’s ‘housing first’ model is keeping people off the streets. so why are auditors worried? 2021). The idea is that doing so will enable folks to not have to focus on survival, so they might be able to improve other aspects of their lives. This blog post is intended to analyze how this policy is played out within the aspects of the Framing and Narratives policy theory, how the framing and narrative is hindering/helping the policy in accomplishing its intended goal.
The legislative auditors found that the State would have to budget a whopping $525 million to house just the homeless population of Salt Lake County. As a result of the findings the legislature was advised to turn its focus to the impediments preventing the unhoused population from standing on their own. The auditors acknowledged the success of the housing first strategy in keeping people from going back to living on the street. Approximately 95% of the recipients of the Homeless Services housing first initiative who were given access to permanent housing stayed or moved onto another type of housing. Their criticism was that the housing for the program was costly to build and that the beneficiaries did not move on from the subsidized housing that the State provided. A legislator advocated for the program by pointing out how much the State was saving on the day-to-day costs associated by caring for the unhoused living on the street. The auditors did not agree with counting on the savings and suggested assessing the program’s intended beneficiaries and looking for ways to make shelters more accessible (Rodgers, 2021).
Theoretical Application: Framing and Narratives
Framing and narratives is a policy theory that views narrative as a method that policy actors can use to achieve policy goals. The idea is that humans rely on short pieces of easily understood information, such as stories to decide whether they approve or disapprove of something, and that holds true for policy. Policy actors are legislators, stakeholders, anyone that has an interest in a policy. There are pitfalls to the framing and narratives approach; knowledge and empathy fallacies. Story tellers, might be inclined to form a narrative based on anecdotal evidence but if the people hearing the story do not feel like the person going through hardship is deserving of empathy then the narrative will not help the policy actor accomplish their goal. In contrast, some policy actors may want to stick to data points and empirical evidence when framing a policy. The issue the might face is that people are largely motivated by their biases and emotions. Even in the face of irrefutable data, if a person doesn’t identify themselves in the policy actor’s narrative they will not view a policy favorably. Some policy actors may use the Casual Mechanism narratives which places the blame for an issue on a specific character. This can be used in conjunction with the Devil/Angel Shift. The Devil/Angel Shift is a narrative that can make a villain out of someone and by contrast an “angel” out of someone else.
Explaining the State Auditor’s Report through the Lens of Framing and Narratives
The State Legislature Auditor’s report took a look at the results of the Homeless Services “housing first” initiative. The report found that the program had been largely successful in accomplishing the task of getting people living in Salt Lake’s streets into housing and remaining house. Despite the progress made, the auditors criticized the program as costly and not a long term solution. The auditors discouraged the legislature from putting too much stock into the savings incurred by not having to pay for emergency medical services rendered to unhoused individuals. The report was also critical about the long-term beneficiaries of the “housing first” program and suggested that Homeless Services should narrow the groups they were targeting for assistance to veterans and families.
The Policy Actors, the Angels, and the Devils
The policy actors in the auditor’s report are the State, Homeless Services, and the unhoused population of Utah. The report framed the policy of “housing first” as a costly and ultimately unsustainable approach to a homelessness issue. The auditors characterized Homeless Services as enablers who will continue needing large budget appropriations to meet the demand for housing the State’s homeless population, instead of focusing on quicker and less expensive solutions to enable unhoused people to improve their own lives. The report also introduces to the narrative the State’s unhoused as unlikely to ever stop needing and relying on the State’s assistance. Finally, the report brought up the “angels”, or in this case veterans and families. These groups are brought up as being deserving of being prioritized by Homeless Services.
The Casual Mechanism
The casual mechanism in this story is that the State is appropriating a huge amount of resources to house a population that will likely never be self-sufficient. If this population would just focus on living independent then the State would not have to spend so much on housing them.
Empathy/Knowledge Fallacies
Despite having empirical data that demonstrates that the “housing first strategy is successful in getting and keeping Utah’s homeless population housed the auditors are choosing to frame the narrative of “housing first” through a reverse empathy approach. The criticisms of the program focus on the demonizing of the program’s beneficiaries as unwilling to move on, become self-sufficient, and even undeserving.
Alternative Framing
If the State wants to continue its successful policy of providing housing to its homeless then it should consider the way it frames the policy. At present the policy is facing criticism with respect to the population it targets for services. The framing and narratives policy theory would suggest the proponents should study the empirical data of the policy. This can include rates of clients who have remained housed, rates of clients that have sought out help with addiction, rates of employment, etc. The program can use the data the legislative auditor’s report came out with and give it much needed context. The Homelessness Task Force can make projections of how much money the State would spend on emergency services and policing in lieu of providing housing.
One of the lessons from the framing and narratives policy theory is that empirical data is not sufficient to achieve policy goals. In the case of the State’s Housing First policy, this presents itself through the auditor’s warning against putting too much value on the savings the State has incurred as a result of the housing policy’s success. The Homelessness Task Force could seek out a two pronged approach to the framing of their program. In addition to the study of the program’s data, the policy’s clients and their stories should be featured prominently when asking for support from not just law makers but also the general public. The program can highlight the success stories of its clients. One of the criticisms of the auditor’s report is the people will not move on from the provided housing and that the services should be directed to veterans and families. This is an opportunity to the Homelessness Task Force to demonstrate the struggles their clients have gone through prior to receiving housing.
Detractors of the Housing First Policy have called into question whether the current clients of the program are deserving of so much investment from the State. This framing of the clients as undeserving and unwilling to help themselves can be combatted. Phillip Stadler wrote an article in 2020 titled, “Housing First: Utah Ends Homelessness and Provides Shelter For All” where he described one of the beneficiaries of the program named Keta. Keta had lived on Utah’s streets for decades while at the same time struggling with alcoholism. She was reluctant to live in the apartment she was provided because she feared it was something that would be taken away. Eventually the woman was able to trust that she finally had stable housing and she became sober. Keta is not a veteran and did not have children or a partner living with her but she has a story that demonstrates people can improve other aspects of their life once they have secure housing (Stadler, 2020).
References
Rodgers, B. (2021, November 16). Utah’s ‘housing first’ model is keeping people off the streets. so why are auditors worried? The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/11/16/utahs-housing-first-model/
Stadler, P (2020, July 8). Housing First: Utah ends homelessness and provides shelter for all. Scoop. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2007/S00052/housing-first-utah-ends-homelessness-and-provides-shelter-for-all.htm#:~:text=Utah%20started%20the%20Housing%20First,were%20no%20restrictions%20or%20rules.
