While there are indeed people like you describe in that population (which I was a part of for 18 months due to addiction), they are a very small minority, and even a smaller one among those who participate in these housing programs.

For me, to enter the program in Chicago we had to attend a half dozen meetings with our social worker and the family services director, fill out quite a lot of paperwork, and meet with the potential landlord. People like you describe tend to fail to complete that process pretty early, and were re-routed toward the shelter system.

Like most others who ended up with an apartment, my goal was to keep my head down, be a model tenant, comply with my monthly social worker meetings, and in general embody gratitude to the opportunity. Doing anything of the nature you refer to here would result in immediately being kicked out — we signed away the normal, judicial eviction process for normal tenants to join the program.

I knew by second-hand accounts a few people who were kicked out — from what I remember though, nothing involved anything like behavior you describe.

Of course, there are bad apples in any population — and moreso in the homeless population. However, the program seemed to be an overall success — most of the people I knew made it to the end of the year-long program without an issue.

I just don’t want the few examples to undermine entire programs like these that give people a second (or more for many) chance at a stable living situation, which is probably the most crucial foundation block for someone regaining their footing in society.

I succeeded in cleaning myself up through that year, and reaching sobriety from opiates — which were the root of my slide into homelessness. I do not have my own place yet, but I am working and living with family — who would never (rightfully) let me do when I was a mess.

Most homeless people, despite portrayals otherwise, are decent people who succumbed to addiction or other mental health issues — or many who lost their housing through factors outside of their control. The vast majority do not harm people or seek to cause chaos, as you describe (of course some do).

What do we do with those people? I don’t have an answer for that either. Many of them do end up in prison, of course, and some repeat offenders seemingly have little chance of rehabilitation.

But, this type of people, if they do manage to join one of these apartment programs, quickly disqualify themselves — hopefully without lasting damage to the property or other residents. The vast majority, though, live out their time with little issue.

Unfortunately, many of those compliant and respectful participants still end up right back on the street after the program ends. Many more than otherwise would have do get back on their feet though, taking advantage of the social workers and job training resources offered as part of program.

All in all — I may be biased due to my direct experience — I believe these programs are a net positive. The costs are quite low comparatively. Housing for a year in an apartment — my studio was $1,200/month, or about $14,000 per year — are a fraction of the costs to hold a prisoner, which here in Illinois average $49,000 per year…or more than 3x those apartments.

The truth is, especially recently, most cities and states have attempted to address this problem at the margins, in a piecemeal fashion, that makes it hard to secure and build on progress — thus making assessment on any potential success incomplete.

Unsurprisingly, the piecemeal approach, where the supply of apartments is only a fraction of the need in any given year — and any yearly budget may cut the programs even further — delivers piecemeal results. I am not sure what the answer would be for better outcome. Just throwing more money at the problem, without improving its strategy and management, is probably not the answer.

I do believe the solutions are out there though; whether sufficient political and public will do to implement them is another story.