3 ms·

What does moralizing have to do with it? These are people who could benefit from systematized programmatic interventions. Relying on some moral guideposts to d

What does moralizing have to do with it? These are people who could benefit from systematized programmatic interventions. Relying on some moral guideposts to decide who is worthy and who should be harassed or left to suffer feels really pointless. Just help them, both for their sake and for the quality of life of everyone else around them.

1123581321 8y ago
Set aside morality and look at costs and priorities. It’s difficult to help people who just need to interrupt a bad cycle using the same programs as people who cannot, or choose not to, graduate into a more self-sufficient program or lifestyle. And the answer isn’t simply more money, unfortunately, as there are also limits to qualified staff, effective housing and facility locations, effective following steps that don’t lead to relapse, special education/home visit resources, etc. Edit: I am writing from a city that has mostly solved homelessness, so I am not saying it cannot be done. Just that an indiscriminate approach is unlikely to work.
- kingkawn 8y ago
  Not an indiscrimitate approach; different people require different types of help. But to claim the problem unsolvable and throw up our hands is unnecessarily cruel. All kinds of hard problems get solved so that they don’t harm anyone anymore. Why not this one?
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    I think “throwing up hands” looks the same as prioritizing with few enough resources available. I agree the original comment wasn’t incisive enough (drug use is way too obtuse of a proxy for receptiveness to receiving help) but I also have seen naive approaches spend resources that should have gone to others first. It’s challenging. My hope is that effective use of vacant properties will proliferate because more responsible people can live in them, freeing up expensive lower-trust facilities for people who shouldn’t be let alone before they've received treatment, cut criminal ties, etc.

1123581321 8y ago

Set aside morality and look at costs and priorities. It’s difficult to help people who just need to interrupt a bad cycle using the same programs as people who cannot, or choose not to, graduate into a more self-sufficient program or lifestyle. And the answer isn’t simply more money, unfortunately, as there are also limits to qualified staff, effective housing and facility locations, effective following steps that don’t lead to relapse, special education/home visit resources, etc. Edit: I am writing from a city that has mostly solved homelessness, so I am not saying it cannot be done. Just that an indiscriminate approach is unlikely to work.

kingkawn 8y ago
Not an indiscrimitate approach; different people require different types of help. But to claim the problem unsolvable and throw up our hands is unnecessarily cruel. All kinds of hard problems get solved so that they don’t harm anyone anymore. Why not this one?
- 1123581321 8y ago
  I think “throwing up hands” looks the same as prioritizing with few enough resources available. I agree the original comment wasn’t incisive enough (drug use is way too obtuse of a proxy for receptiveness to receiving help) but I also have seen naive approaches spend resources that should have gone to others first. It’s challenging. My hope is that effective use of vacant properties will proliferate because more responsible people can live in them, freeing up expensive lower-trust facilities for people who shouldn’t be let alone before they've received treatment, cut criminal ties, etc.