Hawaii House Bill HR173

Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/23
• Refer: 3/15/23
• Report Pass: 3/29/23
• Refer: 3/29/23
• Report Pass: 4/5/23
• Passed: 4/5/23

Caption

Requesting The Department Of Human Services To Perform A Study To Determine If The Government As A Whole Is Adequately Allocating Funding For Each Region Of Oahu For Homeless Services.

Impact

The bill's passage could potentially reorganize funding methodologies for homeless services throughout Oahu, ensuring that regions are equitably supported based on their specific needs and circumstances. By undertaking this study, the resolution aims to reveal disparities in current funding allocations and propose solutions to improve service delivery. It reinforces the commitment of the government to address homelessness strategically, ensuring resources are directed where they are most needed.

Summary

House Resolution 173 directs the Department of Human Services to conduct a study assessing whether the government is adequately funding homeless services across various regions of Oahu. This inquiry comes in the wake of the 2022 Point in Time Count which highlighted significant numbers of unsheltered homeless individuals, with specific attention drawn to regions like the Waianae Coast. The resolution emphasizes the need for a strategic allocation of resources to address the challenges faced by homeless populations effectively.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HR173 tends to be supportive, given the ever-growing concern regarding homelessness in Hawaii. Stakeholders, including local lawmakers and community advocates, are likely to see the study as a crucial step towards understanding and tackling the underlying issues related to homelessness. However, there may be apprehensions regarding the implementation of any recommended changes in funding that the study might suggest, highlighting a need for ongoing dialogue about resource distribution.

Contention

While the resolution seeks to improve the government’s response to homelessness, potential points of contention could arise regarding the interpretation of study findings and how subsequent funding decisions are made. Critics may argue that mere studies do not adequately address urgent needs on the ground, while supporters may stress the importance of data-driven approaches to policy-making. Balancing immediate assistance with long-term strategic planning could become a focal point of debate in future discussions.