5 ms·

I remember hearing on the radio about the UK Government, many years ago doing a census of all the homeless in the UK. They had somebody on the radio who worked

I remember hearing on the radio about the UK Government, many years ago doing a census of all the homeless in the UK. They had somebody on the radio who worked with the homeless who was tasked to do it in her area. Her instructions were only to count those on public property - i.e, if they were in a shop doorway or a car park they didn't count. Funnily enough the count showed a large decrease in the number of homeless, congratulations all round etc etc.

dazc 11y ago
I've been homeless. Counting people in shop doorways,etc would be a poor measure anyway. And, someone 'who worked with the homeless' would be unlikely to spot the majority of people who were homeless. It's not something you go around advertising unless you're in a certain outlying subset. To my mind, in the UK at least, many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem.
- noja 11y ago
  > many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem. How so?
  - dazc 11y ago
    They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a total stranger who offered me a place to stay. Within a few weeks I was working, back on my feet and paying taxes. Many of the people I saw drinking in the park every day 4 years ago are still there, with the well meaning support of the local homeless charity. When I asked for help I was told there was nothing they could do for me. I'm not saying people with drug and drink issues shouldn't be helped. They should but not under the limited remit and resources of the homelessness agencies.
    - cryoshon 11y ago
      Sounds like there should be two separate organizations, with one providing "get back on your feet" lodging and job placements, and another providing "palliative care" for the unfixable cases with food, medicine, drug counseling, etc. I can see a lot of people I know having to use some help getting back on their feet if things really fell apart for them, and I can see them succeeding in doing so. I can't really see any of them reduced to abusing drugs to the point of homelessness.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      That sounds to me like using the "longest job first" scheduling algorithm in your OS--very inefficient, and certainly not fair. If every homeless person had an estimate attached for the amount of effort required to return them to mainstream society, you have made the problem of allocating caseworkers to people analogous to CPU resources for a process. An automated algorithm could make the perfectly rational decision to prioritize someone who just needs to find some affordable housing quickly over someone who needs a few weeks in rehab, a psych counselor, vocational retraining, lifestyle interventions, etc. Select a fair algorithm, and you get a fair allocation of limited resources, without having to "nice" any process so far down that it never actually gets to execute.
      - Mz 11y ago
        I think it is far worse than that. I have chronic health problems and was abused as a child. Here are a few of my opinions: A very high percentage of people in "helping" professions have a deep need to be needed. It strongly inclines them to want to help you in a way that keeps you in need of a crutch and subtly but actively discourages or prevents you from ever standing on your own two feet. Many programs have such unhealthy paradigms, you are better off avoiding them if at all possible. The way we define services has a tendency to entrench the problem. I am currently homeless and have had a college class on homelessness and public policy and generally read a fair amount over the years about things like the origin of American welfare. I am gradually resolving my very challenging personal problems -- getting healthier, paying down debt, earning more money -- and I run a website aimed at helping homeless people keep their freedom, dignity and agency in the face of a really broken system of assistance.

dazc 11y ago

I've been homeless. Counting people in shop doorways,etc would be a poor measure anyway. And, someone 'who worked with the homeless' would be unlikely to spot the majority of people who were homeless. It's not something you go around advertising unless you're in a certain outlying subset. To my mind, in the UK at least, many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem.

noja 11y ago
> many of the 'people who work with the homeless' are often part of the problem. How so?
- dazc 11y ago
  They spend much of their time and budget helping people with problems that can not be easily solved. For instance, someone with a dependence on alcohol or drugs gets priority over someone who doesn't. A lot of homeless people could have their lives turned around with a timely and cost effective intervention but they are often ignored at the expense of those who are deemed to be 'more vulnerable'. I was helped by a total stranger who offered me a place to stay. Within a few weeks I was working, back on my feet and paying taxes. Many of the people I saw drinking in the park every day 4 years ago are still there, with the well meaning support of the local homeless charity. When I asked for help I was told there was nothing they could do for me. I'm not saying people with drug and drink issues shouldn't be helped. They should but not under the limited remit and resources of the homelessness agencies.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    Sounds like there should be two separate organizations, with one providing "get back on your feet" lodging and job placements, and another providing "palliative care" for the unfixable cases with food, medicine, drug counseling, etc. I can see a lot of people I know having to use some help getting back on their feet if things really fell apart for them, and I can see them succeeding in doing so. I can't really see any of them reduced to abusing drugs to the point of homelessness.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    That sounds to me like using the "longest job first" scheduling algorithm in your OS--very inefficient, and certainly not fair. If every homeless person had an estimate attached for the amount of effort required to return them to mainstream society, you have made the problem of allocating caseworkers to people analogous to CPU resources for a process. An automated algorithm could make the perfectly rational decision to prioritize someone who just needs to find some affordable housing quickly over someone who needs a few weeks in rehab, a psych counselor, vocational retraining, lifestyle interventions, etc. Select a fair algorithm, and you get a fair allocation of limited resources, without having to "nice" any process so far down that it never actually gets to execute.
    - Mz 11y ago
      I think it is far worse than that. I have chronic health problems and was abused as a child. Here are a few of my opinions: A very high percentage of people in "helping" professions have a deep need to be needed. It strongly inclines them to want to help you in a way that keeps you in need of a crutch and subtly but actively discourages or prevents you from ever standing on your own two feet. Many programs have such unhealthy paradigms, you are better off avoiding them if at all possible. The way we define services has a tendency to entrench the problem. I am currently homeless and have had a college class on homelessness and public policy and generally read a fair amount over the years about things like the origin of American welfare. I am gradually resolving my very challenging personal problems -- getting healthier, paying down debt, earning more money -- and I run a website aimed at helping homeless people keep their freedom, dignity and agency in the face of a really broken system of assistance.