The Future of Homelessness and Mental Health: A Shift Towards Mandated Care?
On July 24, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aiming to address homelessness by encouraging the placement of individuals living in encampments into treatment facilities offering both mental health and substance leverage services. This directive and its implementation in states like Utah, signals a potential turning point in how the U.S. Approaches this complex issue. But what does this imply for the future of care, and what challenges lie ahead?
A Response to a Growing Crisis
The executive order stems from a stark reality: the number of individuals experiencing homelessness in the U.S. Reached a record high of 274,224 during the previous administration. A significant portion of this population struggles with both drug addiction and mental health conditions – nearly two-thirds report regular use of hard drugs, and a similar percentage experience mental illness. Existing programs, costing billions of dollars, have often failed to address these root causes, leaving communities vulnerable.
The new approach, as seen in Utah, prioritizes shifting individuals into long-term institutional care through civil commitment. This contrasts with the previous emphasis on “housing first” initiatives, and aims to restore public order by addressing the underlying issues contributing to homelessness.
Utah’s Pioneering Facility: A Multi-Tiered Approach
Utah is at the forefront of implementing this new strategy with a facility designed to offer varying levels of care. Devon Kurtz of the Cicero Institute advocates for tiers within the facility to cater to diverse needs. These include recovery care supplementing the state hospital, 18- to 24-month residential substance abuse care (often co-occurring with mental illness), and long-term assisted living options. Faster-recovering individuals will receive support for housing, volunteering, and employment.
This tiered system acknowledges that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is ineffective. The facility aims to move beyond short-term hospital stays that often result in individuals being discharged without adequate support, only to return to the streets.
Personal Experience: The Power of Mandated Treatment
The shift towards mandated treatment is particularly poignant when viewed through the lens of personal experience. One individual, who spent 13 months homeless in Los Angeles even as battling schizophrenia, highlights the potential benefits. They were initially reluctant to seek help but ultimately found that mandated treatment during a hospitalization was pivotal in enabling them to return to school and build a fulfilling life.
This experience underscores a critical point: sometimes, individuals in the throes of mental illness are unable to recognize their own need for care. Mandated treatment, in these cases, can be a life-saving intervention.
Addressing the Revolving Door
For years, many individuals with severe mental illness have been caught in a “revolving door” – cycling between the streets, brief hospitalizations, and encounters with law enforcement for minor offenses. The new Utah facility, and similar initiatives, aim to break this cycle by providing long-term, structured care. The goal is to end the “treat and street” approach, where individuals are discharged without the ongoing support they need to maintain stability.
Challenges and Concerns
While the new approach holds promise, concerns remain. Service providers have expressed worry that the executive order may redirect resources away from crucial housing programs. Balancing the need for treatment with the right to individual autonomy will also be a key challenge. Ensuring adequate capacity within facilities to meet the demand is another critical consideration.
The Future Landscape of Homelessness Services
The trends suggest a potential nationwide shift towards a more interventionist approach to homelessness, prioritizing treatment and civil commitment. States may increasingly condition federal grants on adherence to these policies, potentially leading to a reduction in urban camping and a move away from “harm reduction” tactics. The success of Utah’s facility will be closely watched as a model for other states considering similar initiatives.
FAQ
Q: What is civil commitment?
A: Civil commitment is a legal process by which an individual with a mental illness can be involuntarily confined to a treatment facility.
Q: What is the difference between “housing first” and this new approach?
A: “Housing first” prioritizes providing immediate housing without preconditions. This new approach prioritizes treatment and addresses underlying issues before or alongside housing.
Q: Will this approach solve homelessness?
A: It’s unlikely to be a complete solution, but it represents a significant shift in strategy that may address the needs of a particularly vulnerable segment of the homeless population.
Q: What are the concerns about redirecting resources?
A: Some worry that focusing on treatment may lead to reduced funding for housing programs, which are also essential for addressing homelessness.
Did you recognize? Approximately two-thirds of individuals experiencing homelessness report regular use of hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids.
Pro Tip: Advocating for increased funding for both treatment facilities *and* affordable housing is crucial for a comprehensive approach to homelessness.
What are your thoughts on this new approach? Share your comments below and let’s continue the conversation.
