Unfortunately, I think the populations that get missed are the ones that our systems themselves find ways not to serve, so it's the chronically homeless and the people who have active addictions. It seems to be the ones who consistently get shut out of the system that we do have. Housing First is the first time when we said no and said we were going to flip things on their head and prioritize those who have been marginalized.
The trick with that is there always seems to be a loser in these initiatives, because even with Housing First, that investment has prioritized the chronically homeless population, but we've now forgotten about those who experience homelessness as a transitory experience. This has reverberated across the country. As awesome as Housing First has been and as great as it is that our cost-savings argument has leveraged those initiatives—we say that this guy's costing $100,000 and now he's costing $10,000—a youth who hasn't been going to emergency care, has been living on the street, and is engaging in the sex trade for survival is not costing us, so that extremely vulnerable youth is not a priority now because of our Housing First focus, so I would say that you need to consider the unintended consequences in all of this. In my research, I've talked to so many youth who say—pardon me—“I'm not effed up enough to get help.” That's not the intent, I'm sure, but it happens a lot.