Facts not every unhoused person wants to be housed. We need to address those issues as well if we want to confront the issue.
Facts not every unhoused person wants to be housed
Is that really true? Answer that first.
Then, if so, answer this: why? That’s an important question.
Do they just enjoy sleeping outside and being pissed on? Somehow I doubt it.
In addition to what the other guy said:
-
not wanting to give up drugs
-
not wanting to give up pets
-
not wanting to give up the support structure (services, charities, other homeless) that they’ve spent a long time building up
-
straight up mental incapacity to live by themselves (schizophrenia, etc)
Housing first doesn’t have to interfere with any of that. A reasonable home will allow you to have a pet. They’ll need those support structures on the street or off, it wouldn’t make sense to cut them off. Anyone with a mental health issue is ONLY going to have a better time with a safe, private space they can call their own, and housing first means there’s no stipulation to getting off drugs, until you’re ready.
Redefine housing as the FIRST step and not the pot of gold at the end of the societal expectation rainbow, and you’ll get a lot further.
Yes it is absolutely the case as I have seen in the thirty years I have volunteered with homeless shelters.
Typically it is PTSD that sometimes leads to violent responses that makes these people want to be unhoused. We have a lot of vets in my country, The USA, who aren’t getting the mental health care they need. Some of these people are on the streets because they do not trust themselves around loved ones.
So, you get my point. It isn’t just a desire to be on the street because they think it’s cool and fun.
Many of them “don’t want to be housed” because of all the strings attached to having housing. When you simply give people their own warm bed with a roof they’ll almost always use it.
Because… getting housing often means losing the community support they get from other homeless. If you get a house, but lose your friends and support system and the people who (eg) go shopping for you, then how is that a win?
These people would happily be housed if it didn’t mean yanking them away from their community.
So the solution is to house entire homeless communities together and at the same time.
Why would they lose their community? All their homeless friends also get free housing, probably in the same building or nearby. Their friends who did shopping and shit for them, there’s probably more reason than they’re homeless that they’re helping out. And if you’re referring to state or private institutions, there’s no reason not to keep those resources available.
Further, the former homeless now has more opportunities to form even better communities, and start standing on their own. It’s wins all the way around. Hell, it even ends up being CHEAPER for the average person, because crime tends to go down, medical expenses go down, etc.
That’s not how housing works. You answer the housing lottery, get in the queue, and eventually you get a house if you’re lucky. So when you look at a homeless community, it’s random who gets a house when.
Look up the podcast “according to need”. They talked with a bunch of homeless people and did a great analysis of the situation. It’s only like 5 or 6 episodes.
I wouldn’t want to be housed either, if it came with a laundry list of stipulations, requirements, and more or less complete destruction of autonomy. I doubt anyone would turn down a free, no-questions-asked place to call a home. Somewhere safe to rest and begin working on the issues naturally.
Housing first tends to more or less solve, or drastically reduce, homelessness and all the associated negative things - crime, substance abuse, medical issues, etc. Turns out it’s easier to get all the other things sorted and get back to society when you have the bare minimum left.
Sure there will probably be a very small percentage of people who just… don’t want to. They’re actually happy doing their thing, and that’s not really a problem. But I’d strongly doubt it’s less than a tenth of a percent of the current homeless population.
Im not sure how large the number is only that in the decades I have volunteered with shelters that some exist.
Sure, some. And some people eat shit for fun, it’s a minority of a minority, and I’d put good money on that
But I’d strongly doubt it’s less than a tenth of a percent of the current homeless population.
Also by definition it’s 0% of the current homeless population who is unhappy being homeless.
I don’t know if you misspoke or if I’m just misreading it. I really hope you’re not making the “these people aren’t changing their circumstances so they must by definition be Happy in them” argument. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification because that’s a fuckin dumb argument lol
Houses are only a small piece of the puzzle.
People are homeless for many different reasons. Mental health and drug addiction are two big ones. Then there are the handicapped, those that can’t hold down a job. Those that lost everything they had. And even those that just want to be homeless.
People look at the homeless population though their own biases. Their framing is that people want a house.
We could try and give a house to every one of these people and they wouldn’t all take it. Some would destroy it and return to being homeless, either maliciously or as.a byproduct of their mental illness.
We should house the ones we can, feed the ones we can, and treat the health of the ones we can. Those that want rehab should get it, but I don’t think every drug addict out there wants to be cured. We should provide showers and clean clothes.
We need to remove the stigma from the homeless.
We need to make it easier for businesses to hire the homeless.
And we could do all that, and more. And we’d still have homeless. We will always have homeless. There is no holistic solution that will magically house everyone.
It’s really easy for businesses to hire the homeless. They just don’t want to. What we need to do is give them incentives to hire them.
Also, if we’re going to house people we need to just do it. Just give them shelter period. No strings attached. At least for a while until other programs can get them on their feet. I’ve watched people try to navigate the system to get a real roof over their heads the “right way” and it feels like it’s just set up for them to inevitably fail. They have to jump through hoops, sometimes in really dehumanizing ways, and can lose it all again far too easily. The half assed nonsense we’ve mostly got going now is just fodder for small minded people to point at and say “see, they don’t even want help!”
Yea. Those that want it, give it to them. Making it contingent on being clean from drugs or whatever doesn’t work.
There never will be a one size fits all trick to lifting someone out of being homeless. If someone wants to be lifted up, we should do whatever we can do help them.
I’m just saying that there will never be a complete solve to homelessness. But we can solve homelessness for those that WANT to not be homeless.
The people who don’t want houses aren’t the issue. They can choose not to have one, fine. That’s on them. Housing first has been very successful in certain European countries and cities. A safe place to live is the FIRST step to solving all of those issues, not the pot at the end of the life improvement rainbow.
Just getting people who DO want to offer the street dramatically improves mental health issues, substance abuse issues, lessens their strain on healthcare systems, lowers crime rate… it’s the obvious first step.
But just letting people have housing if they want would already massively help so many people.
The argument that because not all of them want a house so we shouldn’t do it, is literally just the perfect being the enemy of good.
I never said we shouldn’t do it. I said that some unhoused don’t want to be housed so the solution isn’t that simple.
To add another layer of complexity, if all the most visible of the homeless - the crazy, the drug addicts, etc - were to vanish overnight, we would immediately stop caring about the remaining “good homeless” because they don’t impact our daily lives.
This is a non-issue. The solution IS that simple, actually. Give anyone who does want a home a home. If the others don’t want a home well that’s on them. Kinda throwing out the baby with the bathwater saying it’s not so easy because it won’t solve every problem for everyone.
it’s not that simple, the biggest argument is that the core of the problem that made someone homeless is still there.
if you made someone obese fit with swish-and-flick of a magic wand, they would end up fat again in a couple of years, because being fit is much more than just having muscles instead of fat.
I’m not saying that every homeless is in the same situation of course, but you have to fix the problem that let them spiral down before trying to fix the problem by just throwing money at it.
Edit: fixed the link, blame mobile
Housing first works vastly better than any other homelessness strategy we’ve implemented. Turns out, if you don’t have a safe place to rest and just live, you have a far harder time getting all the other issues resolved. Housing is the first step, not the end goal.
Hopefully I fixed the link, if not quick Google scholar search for housing first, first link
If we house them do they suddenly become not mentally ill? That’s a huge problem in the homeless community alongside drug addiction. We need to house them in mental institutions and rehab centers.
Not every homeless person is mentally ill. Even those that are weren’t necessarily that way before; being homeless is not great for your mental health. So giving them a place to live would be an unequivocal good for all of them where as what you’re suggesting only really helps a fraction of them.
Reopen asylums if you want, but they aren’t going to stop being homeless once they finish their treatment. Unless what you really want is just a pseudo prison to lock them all up in so you don’t have to look at them.
80% of the chronically homeless have life long mental health issues, and 60% of the chronically homeless have drug addictions.
What percentage of people with lifelong mental health issues are homeless? What percentage of the housed population has lifelong mental health issues? Should we lock up the ones with houses in asylums too?
100% agree. This would also filter out the people who are homeless by choice, who IMO don’t deserve free housing.
People that are dedicated to not living in a home aren’t going to seek out programs and aid for housing. This is a thinly veiled excuse to continue dehumanizing homeless people. Housing is a human right and everyone should have access to one. If they don’t want it they don’t have to take it but that’s no reason to exclude everybody else
Finland already solved this. A regular ol house upfront and then aid in accessing social services and job placement helps way more than anything else. Here’s an article if you’re interested
In anywhere, you don’t find housing your lifespan decreases dramatically.
Absolutely, some people need in patient medical care or rehab. But not everyone. And those often aren’t permanent things. Usually in patient care is only temporarily needed and a group home is a better and more scalable long term solution.
But the key is some people. Not everyone needs medical help. For one thing, there’s a huge number of homeless people who aren’t the stereotypical on the streets type, but rather living in shelters, friends’ sofas, or their cars. Some homeless people do just need a little help and way to support themselves or a safety net.
Some people are probably also using drugs to cope with being homeless. It certainly won’t be the case for every person, but I’m sure some number can absolutely turn things around after they’re no longer homeless (but not before). I mean, things are pretty bleak if you don’t have a safe place to live and sustain yourself. Can you really fault people for not wanting to give up drugs that make that shitty situation slightly less shitty?
If you house them they have a foundation upon which to build such things as working on their mental illnesses. Or getting over drugs. Or getting a job. Housing is the first step, not the last. People need a private, safe space they call their own FIRST, and the rest at least has a chance to follow.
Although at least in prison, they’ll at least get a chance to get some medical care. Housing them won’t help there. This is why we need universal healthcare.
A large part of the problem is that many don’t want help. Taking antipsychotics sucks in a huge way, as well as quitting most hard drugs. (these demographics account for ~80% of the chronically homeless)
Universal Healthcare won’t change much since you currently can’t force someone to take their meds or quit drugs.
Chronic homelessness is a problem that won’t be solved by throwing more housing or money at it. It’s a super nuanced problem that requires changes at a societal level to address (which won’t happen)
A lot of people seem to think the majority of homeless are those who are just down on their luck, but that’s just not true.
You have already been proved wrong on these lies.
“It’s more complex than saying a single thing causes homelessness” does NOT mean “that single thing plays no part in causing homelessness” Jesus learn some critical thinking skills
Having a stable home would already make it so much easier to quit drugs and improve their mental health. In addition, saying otherwise is the same as saying they don’t deserve a place to live because they have mental health issues/are addicted/whatever. That sucks. Everyone should have a home.
And this is assuming that people get addicted first and then become homeless, and not the other way around.
Yeah indeed that explains the hilighted /fact/.
housing → just housing
prison → housing + clothing + medical + dential + psychological aid? + food + legal costs getting them into prison + legal aid + security + education + /basic/ recreation/entertainment (in some prisons)…
The meme tries to imply one cost prevents the other. Perhaps, but I guess I’m not instantly convinced. That’s not to say people shouldn’t be provided housing anyway just on humanitarian grounds. Housing is a human right (article 25).
Sure, but I was focused on costs. In the US prisons are privatized. I wouldn’t be surprised if the private company running the prison charged for more healthcare than what they actually provide. Or if they charged the state a much higher amount than their actual cost. Prison privatization opens things up to all kinds of shenannigans.
Also worth noting that all the big banks in the US finance private prisons… which creates incentives to fill the prisons. So good idea for USians to boycott the listed banks.
You are way more likely to acquire an infection in prison (bacterial or viral) and have your health conditions ignored or downplayed than you are to get any real access to medical care.
I gave blood recently. One of the questions they ask you is have you been in jail or juvi recently. I assume for the reason you stated above. I.E. having been in jail makes your blood less desireable. Not sure if they’ll actually reject you, but they sure ask.
The types of homeless people who are best helped by “housing first” type aid are not the same ones getting arrested/going to prison. Homeless people aren’t some big monolithic group you can throw one solution at and have it work…
Even if you’re going to overly simplify things you’d at the very least have two groups; the “entrenched” group (more visible and what people think of when talking about homelessness), and “invisible” group (the ones where the factors causing their homelessness are mostly financial).
Yes, actually, they are. Most of the people getting arrested or causing problems are the ones who need housing the most. There is a near 0 chance to get any of that under control without safe and secure housing. First step is a home, and then they can start rebuilding. Ideally, we’ll implement some other social structures, like transportation, medical, counseling, and job aid off the top of my head, but that’s all downstream from housing.
Most problems with the homeless come from those who have something going on, either a mental or emotional episode, or a need they have that they cannot meet realistically, legally. Just having a safe space to have your episode, without judgement from every asshole coming down the street will drastically decrease the odds of a negative event occurring.
This also all applies to your invisible homeless group, why wouldn’t it? They’re homeless too, come get a home and get back on your feet.
This also all applies to your invisible homeless group, why wouldn’t it? They’re homeless too, come get a home and get back on your feet.
Absolutely it does! That’s why those are the people you specifically target with things like a housing-first approach or just straight up money because that’s all they need and can take it from there. I’m pretty sure they make up the majority of homeless as well so it can do a lot of good so the sooner we get on it the better. Check out this trial that was done in Vancouver for example that deliberately excludes the more entrenched people for that reason.
I think we’re agreeing, but aggressively at each other lol. For the record I’m all for including the more well-off homeless (that sounds weird to say) in any initiatives. I don’t think I agree with explicitly excluding the more entrenched, but both groups probably do need different resources, and so it’s not entirely as simple as just give em all cash or a house, but I think in both cases it’s the FIRST step to take.
It’s cute that you think they’re trying to save money 😂
Here in California we’re saving the most money, by not jailing the homeless AND not housing the homeless.
Leaving them on the streets is also more expensive than housing them.
When they’re on the streets, it means the government must pay for emergency services, extra sanitation work, police are called more frequently, etc.
Hell at this point it’s that added with another nefarious reason. It’s because in places like the US homeless are on par with untouchables.
Our hierarchies are so segmented they may as well be castes: and that’s by design. If there’s a group as poor off as homeless individuals then it shows other “lower castes” that they better fall in line or get kicked down to their level.
Why not help these homeless individuals? Because it takes money away from the “top castes” money pile. It also takes away the threat of homelessness that the “upper castes” use to keep the “middle castes” in line.
