Flight-home plan needs strict rules

Left as it is, the new state law authorizing airfare for homeless people heading back to the mainland could cause more problems than it solves.

This program must not turn into an option open to all applicants.

If it is to function as intended — as another tool for helping even a minority homeless population — the program should allot funds only in specific cases that have the backing of service providers.

The voluntary "return-to-home" program was enacted as part of a larger spending bill in the last legislative session.

This approach has been championed by state Reps. John Mizuno and Rida Cabanilla, who have said some people come to the islands and then become stranded.

If these people desire to go home but lack the means, they have said, it makes more fiscal sense for the state to help them get there rather than keeping them on the dole in Honolulu.

While that circumstance may apply in some cases, airfare handouts could turn into a money pit over the long term, if they become a lure for more new arrivals.

The new state law has received enough national media exposure already, now that the word is out.

Social service experts here have the very rational concern that people who are thinking of taking a chance on flying to Hawaii do so partly because of the temperate climate, but also because health care and other services are more broadly accessible here than they are in many other places.

If they think that a free ticket back home is equally within their reach, then that strengthens the attraction, they said.

And they’re right.

Other cities have tried versions of the same program, with some success. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched an initiative in 2007, buying families one-way tickets and gas cards to help them return home after an attempted New York relocation had soured, leaving them homeless. San Francisco’s effort is called Homeward Bound, offering bus tickets out of town to qualifying families. Two years ago, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., unveiled its own bus-fare project.

However, Hawaii’s problem with such a plan is particularly knotty. Once they’re ensconced in Hawaii, families can’t find alternative housing in the next town or just across state lines. They can really be stuck, and it would be a mistake for the state to hold out hope of an easy plane ticket back as a fall-back option for them.

Even if the state can keep administrative costs down, $100,000 won’t go that far.

The only way to administer this program well would be to make transportation available not to applicants but only in cases that have a referral.

The professionals who counsel families in Hawaii’s shelters ought to have a good idea of which people can best be helped in this way and access the money for them.

And then it should be treated as a pilot project. Lawmakers should evaluate it carefully before committing state funds over the long term for such a program. Private foundations may see this as an entry point into the campaign to help the homeless, and that ultimately may be the best outcome.

Such programs are attractive to policymakers partly because they’re quick fixes that can be held out to the public as solutions. But in reality, they fix very little.

The proper focus for government should not be on peripheral solutions like "return-to-home" ticket-issuing but on directing the homeless to transitional and permanent housing, employment and other support systems.

That’s how Hawaii can help the greatest number of people return home, in any kind of lasting way.