4 ms·

New York State law also mandates that cities must provide shelter beds for their homeless population, so there is enough shelter space for their homeless popula

by tmh79 9y ago

New York State law also mandates that cities must provide shelter beds for their homeless population, so there is enough shelter space for their homeless population, there is no such law in SF/CA.

jdietrich 9y ago
A significant proportion of the rough sleeper population are not easily housed. They may have significant mental health issues that do not warrant involuntary hospitalisation, but cause them to be extremely disruptive or unwilling to be housed. They may have unmanaged substance abuse problems, particularly alcohol dependency. Trauma and PTSD often play a significant role. Sometimes, they're just antisocial assholes. Most of these people can eventually be housed, but it often takes years of intensive support and dozens of false starts. Homelessness exists in a complex relationship with many other personal and social problems. The provision of shelters is only one element of the solution. If you aim for a complete and rapid elimination of visible rough sleeping, you'll inevitably end up persecuting rough sleepers or bussing them off to somewhere else. There is a great deal that can be done to reduce rough sleeping and much of it isn't being done, but there's no magic wand.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  How do you know? The hubris on this site can be stifling some days. Give them a place to sleep, relieve themselfs, and shower. That's all most of them want.
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    >How do you know? I've worked in housing advice and have been personally involved in rehousing homeless people. A member of my immediate family is a director of a housing association and has run several supported housing facilities. It'd be fantastic if homelessness was as simple as "give people homes", but it isn't. Housing is part of the problem - a very large part in some areas - but chronic rough sleepers have very complex needs. If you don't believe me, go out and talk to some rough sleepers. Ask them about their life stories. Ask them about the people they've met on the streets. You'll find some people who have had a bad run of luck and just need somewhere to stay, but you'll also find people who are highly dysfunctional and need intensive support to rebuild their lives.
    - petra 9y ago
      I read that Finland managed to "solve" homelessness,by unconditionally giving to every homeless a place to live and more support, if needed. Is it true? And if so, why isn't this model being copied, at all?
      - jdietrich 9y ago
        Finland have substantially reduced homelessness, but they're some way from eliminating it. The most effective element of their programme appears to be homelessness prevention, through early intervention for families and individuals at risk of homelessness. The obvious difference is simply money. Finland spends 50% more on welfare than the US as a proportion of GDP. They have publicly-funded healthcare of exceptionally high quality, extensive social support and a comprehensive public housing programme. This all connects together. Fewer people fall into homelessness as a result of poverty, because they have a comprehensive welfare state. Fewer people become homeless because of mental illness or drug addiction, because there's comprehensive healthcare coverage and easy access to rehab. Fewer people become homeless when leaving prison, because ex-offenders are referred directly to social workers who can provide personal support, drug treatment and housing. The housing-first model is one element of a holistic strategy to reduce poverty and destitution. The US could achieve something similar, but it'd cost somewhere in the region of $500bn a year, even accounting for efficiency savings. It also takes a long time. Finland's homelessness initiative more than halved homelessness, but it took the best part of 20 years to achieve. Sadly, I'm not sure that America has the political will to spend a lot of money over a long period of time. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/153258/YMra_3en_2015.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/153258/YMra...
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  > They may have significant mental health issues that do not warrant involuntary hospitalisation, but cause them to be extremely disruptive or unwilling to be housed. They may have unmanaged substance abuse problems, particularly alcohol dependency. When you make housing for the homeless dependent on being sober and clean, just what, exactly, do you expect as an outcome if not that? THIS moralizing "Oh, but you've got to DESERVE the help!" is partly why homelessness (and poverty) are still major problems in the US. (Oh, and the truly pathetic NIMBYism in San Fran doesn't help anything... It makes solving the housing problem in general intractible. Seriously, shut up about the "character of the city" when you're really just using that as an excuse to increase your home value and when that "character" leads to a whole bunch of homelessness and rent that is impossible for people seeking jobs to afford.)
  - jdietrich 9y ago
    >When you make housing for the homeless dependent on being sober and clean, just what, exactly, do you expect as an outcome if not that? Note my use of the word "unmanaged". It's possible to house people with active substance abuse problems, but it's considerably more challenging, particularly heavy drinkers and crack users. There is a significant impact in terms of care because you're dealing with people who have a limited capacity to look after themselves, but the primary impediment is aggression and violence. It only takes one difficult resident to turn the whole facility into bedlam, at which point you're faced with few options other than evicting them for the sake of the other residents. Wet houses do exist, but they're a lot more expensive to run and they face far more local opposition. They're a fundamentally good idea, but housing alcoholics and other difficult-to-house groups is a lot more complex than just "open more shelters". You need a highly skilled multidisciplinary team to make it work, and you're still going to have some amount of unavoidable rough sleeping. If you still don't see where I'm coming from, imagine a crack addict with diagnosed antisocial personality disorder. Imagine someone who has been arrested multiple times for assaulting medical staff and police officers. Imagine someone whose life revolves around multi-day crack binges, which usually end in an episode of drug-induced psychosis and either an ER visit or an arrest. These people are not exceptional in the population of chronic rough sleepers, but they're exceptionally difficult to house.

by tmh79 9y ago

New York State law also mandates that cities must provide shelter beds for their homeless population, so there is enough shelter space for their homeless population, there is no such law in SF/CA.

jdietrich 9y ago

A significant proportion of the rough sleeper population are not easily housed. They may have significant mental health issues that do not warrant involuntary hospitalisation, but cause them to be extremely disruptive or unwilling to be housed. They may have unmanaged substance abuse problems, particularly alcohol dependency. Trauma and PTSD often play a significant role. Sometimes, they're just antisocial assholes. Most of these people can eventually be housed, but it often takes years of intensive support and dozens of false starts. Homelessness exists in a complex relationship with many other personal and social problems. The provision of shelters is only one element of the solution. If you aim for a complete and rapid elimination of visible rough sleeping, you'll inevitably end up persecuting rough sleepers or bussing them off to somewhere else. There is a great deal that can be done to reduce rough sleeping and much of it isn't being done, but there's no magic wand.

icantdrive55 9y ago
How do you know? The hubris on this site can be stifling some days. Give them a place to sleep, relieve themselfs, and shower. That's all most of them want.
- jdietrich 9y ago
  >How do you know? I've worked in housing advice and have been personally involved in rehousing homeless people. A member of my immediate family is a director of a housing association and has run several supported housing facilities. It'd be fantastic if homelessness was as simple as "give people homes", but it isn't. Housing is part of the problem - a very large part in some areas - but chronic rough sleepers have very complex needs. If you don't believe me, go out and talk to some rough sleepers. Ask them about their life stories. Ask them about the people they've met on the streets. You'll find some people who have had a bad run of luck and just need somewhere to stay, but you'll also find people who are highly dysfunctional and need intensive support to rebuild their lives.
  - petra 9y ago
    I read that Finland managed to "solve" homelessness,by unconditionally giving to every homeless a place to live and more support, if needed. Is it true? And if so, why isn't this model being copied, at all?
    - jdietrich 9y ago
      Finland have substantially reduced homelessness, but they're some way from eliminating it. The most effective element of their programme appears to be homelessness prevention, through early intervention for families and individuals at risk of homelessness. The obvious difference is simply money. Finland spends 50% more on welfare than the US as a proportion of GDP. They have publicly-funded healthcare of exceptionally high quality, extensive social support and a comprehensive public housing programme. This all connects together. Fewer people fall into homelessness as a result of poverty, because they have a comprehensive welfare state. Fewer people become homeless because of mental illness or drug addiction, because there's comprehensive healthcare coverage and easy access to rehab. Fewer people become homeless when leaving prison, because ex-offenders are referred directly to social workers who can provide personal support, drug treatment and housing. The housing-first model is one element of a holistic strategy to reduce poverty and destitution. The US could achieve something similar, but it'd cost somewhere in the region of $500bn a year, even accounting for efficiency savings. It also takes a long time. Finland's homelessness initiative more than halved homelessness, but it took the best part of 20 years to achieve. Sadly, I'm not sure that America has the political will to spend a lot of money over a long period of time. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/153258/YMra_3en_2015.pdf https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/153258/YMra...
Robotbeat 9y ago
> They may have significant mental health issues that do not warrant involuntary hospitalisation, but cause them to be extremely disruptive or unwilling to be housed. They may have unmanaged substance abuse problems, particularly alcohol dependency. When you make housing for the homeless dependent on being sober and clean, just what, exactly, do you expect as an outcome if not that? THIS moralizing "Oh, but you've got to DESERVE the help!" is partly why homelessness (and poverty) are still major problems in the US. (Oh, and the truly pathetic NIMBYism in San Fran doesn't help anything... It makes solving the housing problem in general intractible. Seriously, shut up about the "character of the city" when you're really just using that as an excuse to increase your home value and when that "character" leads to a whole bunch of homelessness and rent that is impossible for people seeking jobs to afford.)
- jdietrich 9y ago
  >When you make housing for the homeless dependent on being sober and clean, just what, exactly, do you expect as an outcome if not that? Note my use of the word "unmanaged". It's possible to house people with active substance abuse problems, but it's considerably more challenging, particularly heavy drinkers and crack users. There is a significant impact in terms of care because you're dealing with people who have a limited capacity to look after themselves, but the primary impediment is aggression and violence. It only takes one difficult resident to turn the whole facility into bedlam, at which point you're faced with few options other than evicting them for the sake of the other residents. Wet houses do exist, but they're a lot more expensive to run and they face far more local opposition. They're a fundamentally good idea, but housing alcoholics and other difficult-to-house groups is a lot more complex than just "open more shelters". You need a highly skilled multidisciplinary team to make it work, and you're still going to have some amount of unavoidable rough sleeping. If you still don't see where I'm coming from, imagine a crack addict with diagnosed antisocial personality disorder. Imagine someone who has been arrested multiple times for assaulting medical staff and police officers. Imagine someone whose life revolves around multi-day crack binges, which usually end in an episode of drug-induced psychosis and either an ER visit or an arrest. These people are not exceptional in the population of chronic rough sleepers, but they're exceptionally difficult to house.