The Gazette’s Viewpoint of July 22, regarding homeless issues stated that, “The low-barrier experiment has not worked, so it’s time to revert to the old high-barrier model that provided carrot-and-stick incentives to escape the bond of substance abuse.”

As someone who is working to reduce homelessness, I disagree and believe there is real-world evidence to challenge that conclusion.

Low-barrier shelters are not permanent homes, but an intervention; a safe, stable platform to help people attain self-sufficiency and permanent housing. The shelters have few pre-conditions to entry. However, most have clear rules and expectations to ensure a safe environment for residents and clear consequences for those who are unwilling to comply.

Beyond safety and shelter, most offer access to services such as health care, substance abuse treatment, job counseling and training as well as case management — a continuum of care to designed provide a viable way out of homelessness.

The evidence suggests this approach works.

In 2016, Denver launched a low-barrier supportive housing initiative designed to house people rapidly. There were no pre-conditions such as treatment to achieve sobriety. The program included housing and supportive services.

The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the University of Colorado, Denver tracked the program’s effectiveness between 2016 and 2020 in a randomized controlled trial of 724 people, half of whom received housing and support. Of those who received housing, 86% remained in stable housing after one year.

After two years, 81% were still housed. At the third year, the retention rate was 71%, and there was a 65% reduction in the use of detoxification services as well.

The initiative was also a big win for taxpayers.

Those who received supportive housing greatly reduced the cost of government funded support such as emergency room visits, ambulance usage and jail costs, slashing the annual per-person cost of public assistance in half.

In contrast, high-barrier shelters have rules and restrictions that residents must follow to receive shelter. Sobriety is usually a prerequisite, pets are often disallowed and there are frequently stringent curfews.

While there is a role for high-barrier shelters, they are not the singular solution to homelessness. Those barriers tend to eliminate the majority of people who are experiencing homelessness especially those who are striving to recover from substance abuse, or whose job — or job search — conflicts with the curfew.

The Gazette editorial also stated that Dr. Dennis Culhane “is adamant that addicts and people with mental illness respond best to housing as a reward.” In fact, he did not say that and disavowed that attribution in correspondence with this writer and on his Twitter feed.

What Dr. Culhane has said is that “The low-barrier aspect, the no requirements for treatment or sobriety, those are all features of safe havens, and they’ve been very successful at engaging some of the people who have the greatest difficulty connecting to services otherwise.”

Our community is best served by an apolitical approach that is supported by science as well as common sense.

There are many who are striving to achieve stability and permanent housing. Attaching conditions to their ability to obtain treatment and shelter is a recipe for increasing — not reducing — homelessness in Colorado Springs.

Glenn Shellhouse does street outreach, enrolling veterans who are experiencing homelessness in a nonprofit housing-first program at Rocky Mountain Human Services. The views represented here are his alone.

Glenn Shellhouse