There are countries and jurisdictions all over the world that have removed the need to participate in social programs in order to qualify for social housing. This is called “Housing First”. You know what happened in those places? Homelessness diminished significantly.
You claim there are people who would be uncooperative if they were given a home, and frankly I don’t believe you. If someone is given bare minimum accommodations with no strings attached, they will take it because the alternative is sleeping in the streets. Your friend who prefers the bohemian lifestyle doesn’t count. We’re talking about people who aren’t able to access housing due to economic or societal reasons, not people who simply choose not to access housing.
If someone is homeless and also an alcoholic, one of those problems has a very straightforward solution. It would be basically impossible for them to deal with their alcoholism while also homeless. Personally, I’d say someone still deserves a roof over their head even if they struggle with an illness like alcoholism.
We absolutely need to stop making access to housing contingent on participation in other social programs. It’s incredibly cruel to treat housing as the carrot (and the threat of homelessness as the stick) to motivate someone to fix their life. Shelter is a basic human right, not a bargaining chip.
There are countries and jurisdictions all over the world that have removed the need to participate in social programs in order to qualify for social housing. This is called “Housing First”. You know what happened in those places? Homelessness diminished significantly.
Yes, Housing First models offer a good framework, but there are some caveats and considerations with each implementation of them. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach with Housing First models, and it doesn’t always give positive outcomes.
You still need to have other support for Housing First to work, and when those needs aren’t addressed, it doesn’t actually work all that well.
In Ottawa, a Housing First approach showed some benefit and some detriment to the participants. In that study, people with substance abuse who were given housing and care had worse outcomes than the comparison group of homeless people with problematic substance abuse who were receiving standard care. The Housing First group suffered more mental health, lower overall quality of life, worse relations with their family, and greater chance of “problematic drug use”. Despite that, they self-reported higher levels of satisfaction with living conditions after a year, but not more than the comparison group at year two. (SOURCE)
You claim there are people who would be uncooperative if they were given a home, and frankly I don’t believe you.
Then I suggest doing volunteer outreach work in your community so you can see it first hand.
“Care avoidance”, as it’s called, is real. There are multiple factors involved, and don’t always relate to a person being stubborn or unwilling, so a different approach is often needed to get the best outcome.
If someone is given bare minimum accommodations with no strings attached, they will take it because the alternative is sleeping in the streets.
Not every homeless person finds “sleeping in the streets” to be the worst of their problems, though. An addict may not even care, or have some other concern/reason not to take up your offer.
But there are absolutely people who jump at the opportunity to truly get off the streets and enroll in programs to make that happen - permanently.
Your friend who prefers the bohemian lifestyle doesn’t count. We’re talking about people who aren’t able to access housing due to economic or societal reasons, not people who simply choose not to access housing.
He lost everything in a divorce. I explained that. It was not his choice. He only chose how he wanted to proceed with what was dealt to him.
If someone is homeless and also an alcoholic, one of those problems has a very straightforward solution. It would be basically impossible for them to deal with their alcoholism while also homeless. Personally, I’d say someone still deserves a roof over their head even if they struggle with an illness like alcoholism.
Of course, a shelter, or program that offers shelter until someone gets back on their feet are the best options.
Simply giving an addict a place to live, without addressing their addiction, isn’t providing solutions.
For example, giving a homeless person food is more important than giving them a home with no food. Wouldn’t you agree?
Programs that provide guidance and support for being an independent adult again, are critical for success.
We absolutely need to stop making access to housing contingent on participation in other social programs.
Without participation, what’s the point? Are you looking to set up a welfare state where we simply house broken people without helping them, or one that empowers people to pick themselves off and live a meaningful life?
We have different viewpoints, but I’m sure we both want the same outcomes.
Without participation, what’s the point? Are you looking to set up a welfare state where we simply house broken people without helping them, or one that empowers people to pick themselves off and live a meaningful life?
The point is that people don’t have to die of exposure in the streets because they lack one of the most basic human rights. I don’t see why you are having trouble grasping that. Housing isn’t the reward for participating in society. It’s a basic need that all humans have regardless of how “broken” they are.
If someone is a heroin addict with severe mental health issues, I’d rather they shoot up or freak out in their home than out on the street. All humans deserve the dignity of shelter.
I don’t deny that homelessness is a symptom of a myriad of socioeconomic problems. But despite its many causes, it has a very simple solution: Put people in homes. Then they aren’t homeless anymore. Obviously the other problems need to be addressed as well, but that’s a different conversation. And those other problems are not addressable while someone is worrying about where they will sleep every day.
Housing isn’t the reward for participating in society. It’s a basic need that all humans have…
Do you support free housing for EVERYONE? If not, then you are creating unfair living standards for EVERYONE.
You could also argue that food, clean water, healthcare, and transportation are basic needs that all humans have, yet these aren’t handed out freely without some effort from the individual.
We don’t have to agree with how things are, but these facts apply to everyone.
I’d argue that a universal basic income can have more of an impact than handing out housing with no strings attached. That is, of the goal is to lift people out of poverty and ensure that they don’t end up homeless for economic reasons.
If someone is a heroin addict with severe mental health issues, I’d rather they shoot up or freak out in their home than out on the street. All humans deserve the dignity of shelter.
I’d rather they get help, but beyond that, give them the tools to live a fulfilling life free of addiction and mental suffering.
There is no dignity of giving somewhere a place to harm themselves rather than helping them. It takes away their dignity and undermines their potential to better their circumstance.
Helping someone to help themselves can be incredibly empowering.
it has a very simple solution: Put people in homes. Then they aren’t homeless anymore.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I already posted evidence that giving people free housing doesn’t always improve their situation. In many cases, it makes their lives worse.
It’s like the quote “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime”.
You can’t support people forever with free housing. And without their participation, they will always be homeless but living under the government’s roof.
This is a complex issue with no silver bullet solution.
There are countries and jurisdictions all over the world that have removed the need to participate in social programs in order to qualify for social housing. This is called “Housing First”. You know what happened in those places? Homelessness diminished significantly.
You claim there are people who would be uncooperative if they were given a home, and frankly I don’t believe you. If someone is given bare minimum accommodations with no strings attached, they will take it because the alternative is sleeping in the streets. Your friend who prefers the bohemian lifestyle doesn’t count. We’re talking about people who aren’t able to access housing due to economic or societal reasons, not people who simply choose not to access housing.
If someone is homeless and also an alcoholic, one of those problems has a very straightforward solution. It would be basically impossible for them to deal with their alcoholism while also homeless. Personally, I’d say someone still deserves a roof over their head even if they struggle with an illness like alcoholism.
We absolutely need to stop making access to housing contingent on participation in other social programs. It’s incredibly cruel to treat housing as the carrot (and the threat of homelessness as the stick) to motivate someone to fix their life. Shelter is a basic human right, not a bargaining chip.
Yes, Housing First models offer a good framework, but there are some caveats and considerations with each implementation of them. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach with Housing First models, and it doesn’t always give positive outcomes.
You still need to have other support for Housing First to work, and when those needs aren’t addressed, it doesn’t actually work all that well.
In Ottawa, a Housing First approach showed some benefit and some detriment to the participants. In that study, people with substance abuse who were given housing and care had worse outcomes than the comparison group of homeless people with problematic substance abuse who were receiving standard care. The Housing First group suffered more mental health, lower overall quality of life, worse relations with their family, and greater chance of “problematic drug use”. Despite that, they self-reported higher levels of satisfaction with living conditions after a year, but not more than the comparison group at year two. (SOURCE)
Then I suggest doing volunteer outreach work in your community so you can see it first hand.
“Care avoidance”, as it’s called, is real. There are multiple factors involved, and don’t always relate to a person being stubborn or unwilling, so a different approach is often needed to get the best outcome.
Not every homeless person finds “sleeping in the streets” to be the worst of their problems, though. An addict may not even care, or have some other concern/reason not to take up your offer.
But there are absolutely people who jump at the opportunity to truly get off the streets and enroll in programs to make that happen - permanently.
He lost everything in a divorce. I explained that. It was not his choice. He only chose how he wanted to proceed with what was dealt to him.
Of course, a shelter, or program that offers shelter until someone gets back on their feet are the best options.
Simply giving an addict a place to live, without addressing their addiction, isn’t providing solutions.
For example, giving a homeless person food is more important than giving them a home with no food. Wouldn’t you agree?
Programs that provide guidance and support for being an independent adult again, are critical for success.
Without participation, what’s the point? Are you looking to set up a welfare state where we simply house broken people without helping them, or one that empowers people to pick themselves off and live a meaningful life?
We have different viewpoints, but I’m sure we both want the same outcomes.
The point is that people don’t have to die of exposure in the streets because they lack one of the most basic human rights. I don’t see why you are having trouble grasping that. Housing isn’t the reward for participating in society. It’s a basic need that all humans have regardless of how “broken” they are.
If someone is a heroin addict with severe mental health issues, I’d rather they shoot up or freak out in their home than out on the street. All humans deserve the dignity of shelter.
I don’t deny that homelessness is a symptom of a myriad of socioeconomic problems. But despite its many causes, it has a very simple solution: Put people in homes. Then they aren’t homeless anymore. Obviously the other problems need to be addressed as well, but that’s a different conversation. And those other problems are not addressable while someone is worrying about where they will sleep every day.
Do you support free housing for EVERYONE? If not, then you are creating unfair living standards for EVERYONE.
You could also argue that food, clean water, healthcare, and transportation are basic needs that all humans have, yet these aren’t handed out freely without some effort from the individual.
We don’t have to agree with how things are, but these facts apply to everyone.
I’d argue that a universal basic income can have more of an impact than handing out housing with no strings attached. That is, of the goal is to lift people out of poverty and ensure that they don’t end up homeless for economic reasons.
I’d rather they get help, but beyond that, give them the tools to live a fulfilling life free of addiction and mental suffering.
There is no dignity of giving somewhere a place to harm themselves rather than helping them. It takes away their dignity and undermines their potential to better their circumstance.
Helping someone to help themselves can be incredibly empowering.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I already posted evidence that giving people free housing doesn’t always improve their situation. In many cases, it makes their lives worse.
It’s like the quote “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime”.
You can’t support people forever with free housing. And without their participation, they will always be homeless but living under the government’s roof.
This is a complex issue with no silver bullet solution.