10 ms·

I think this is the first article I've read to use the term "visible homelessness". For many people who live in Seattle, the world "homeless" really means visi

by curtis 7y ago

I think this is the first article I've read to use the term "visible homelessness". For many people who live in Seattle, the world "homeless" really means visibly homeless, but for many political activists, the word includes people in shelters or living in the cars or otherwise keeping a low profile while not having a permanent address. I'm no expert but I strongly suspect that the best ways to help the visibly homeless and the not-visibly-homeless are pretty different. But activists are more than willing to conflate the two cases. This particularly arises in the case of affordable housing. Housing may indeed be the primary problem for the not-visibly-homeless. It seems pretty likely though (just based on observation) that the biggest problems for the visibly homeless are mental illness and substance abuse. I think we'd be better served by not talking past each other and instead make it clear which kind of homeless problem we're talking about at any particular time.

rolltiide 7y ago
In San Francisco some groups use the term visible homeless as well. I think it is a good start in categorization because there is so much cognitive dissonance between seeing a thing, not understanding what is already being done about a thing, and conflating a dozen other issues as one thing.
sushisource 7y ago
I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms but this really strikes a chord. I'll definitely be using more specific language from now on.
ncallaway 7y ago
> that the biggest problems for the visibly homeless are mental illness and substance abuse. I think there's some reasonable evidence that housing first approaches are extremely helpful in addressing both mental illness and substance abuse. Housing creates an opportunity for both stability and routine, which are incredibly important for getting help and treatment for mental illness and substance abuse. I don't think the evidence is 100% conclusive yet, but I don't think a housing first approach can absolutely be helpful for both populations (but for different reasons!). I do think it makes sense to think about both of these populations, because they definitely don't have the all of the same needs. Pretty much everyone needs shelter and at least a small place to safety store items.
nostromo 7y ago
> But activists are more than willing to conflate the two cases. I work in philanthropy and this is absolutely the case. To most donors and laypeople, a person is homeless if they sleep outdoors, in a car, or in a shelter. But to people who work in this space, a person staying with friends or extended family members can also be considered homeless. This greatly increases the amount of people considered homeless in their reporting.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  That is definitely the case in my community. We are not a big city, and we have essentially zero visible homelessness. But the stats for my kids' elementary school says we actually have a fair number of homeless kids. Turns out that's because they are living somewhere that does not qualify as their own home. They still have a place to eat & sleep.
  - sgift 7y ago
    It sounds like the reason here is that unlike your home staying somewhere else has a pretty high chance of not being permanent. It's probably a good idea to not state "we have zero homelessness" and a month later people run around "How can there be all these people on the streets?! You said we have no homelessness!"
- tathougies 7y ago
  > But to people who work in this space, a person staying with friends or extended family members can also be considered homeless. This greatly increases the amount of people considered homeless in their reporting. Well of course, they've made their career in this. If people are no longer homeless under the common definition of the term, these people would be without a job, so they have to do marketing work to change the goal posts to justify their existence.
xenocyon 7y ago
The evidence shows that housing-first policies applied to the worst cases (chronically homeless single people with addiction) is effective and lowers costs, in fact more so than for easier clients (families who have become homeless more recently). However popular outrage culture insists on targeting folks who have addiction with sweeps and incarceration instead, even though the law-and-order response is more expensive and less humane. It seems our urge to punish defeats our willingness to tolerate less retributive evidence-based approaches. Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-counting-the-homeless https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-countin...
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  In Rhode Island they actually prosecute addicts and mentally ill who commit crimes, and offer them the alternative of drug and rehab courts that entail mandatory internment in decent facilities and rehabilitation. They emerge with no record, and no debt to be paid. Many going through the process say it saved their life. The same drug courts and facilities exist on the west coast, but they are underutilized because there is no incentive. No criminal or civil justice funnel. People are just set loose. Intervention helps those who are beyond helping themselves. A free place with no strings attached does not do nearly as much to help those who truly need help.
- tmh79 7y ago
  I am for the "housing first" approach, but there is a clear moral hazard when you provide free housing to the lowest rung, and then say that the minimum cost of housing for the next group is like 1.5k/bedroom/month.
  - hguant 7y ago
    It's important to note that "moral hazard", while not quite a term of art, has a specific meaning in economics that isn't associated with ethics or morality. The quick google definitions: "a lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences" Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
namirez 7y ago
This is very important! A few years ago I was reading about UC Berkeley grad students who were homeless. They slept in their office on campus. When people talk about homelessness, usually their talking about being visibly homeless without knowing it.
- masonic 7y ago
  They slept in their office on campus. That's not homelessness; that's simple, rational economic behavior. I would have done that in college, too, had that option been available to me, and I would hardly call myself "homeless". Is a student living in a dorm "homeless", now, too?
opportune 7y ago
Only about 15% of homeless in Seattle are "visible". Roughly 50% are sheltered, and of the unsheltered many live in vehicle [0] (though the numbers in this article don't quite add up). I fully agree with you though, a lot of people's frustration with the homeless comes from a vocal minority of problematic unsheltered people with serious mental health issues and/or addiction problems. If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off. [0] https://mynorthwest.com/1402025/homeless-seattle-king-county-count/ https://mynorthwest.com/1402025/homeless-seattle-king-county...?
- munificent 7y ago
  > a vocal minority More to the point, a criminal minority. It's mostly lawbreaking that makes this minority visible: assault, robbery, theft, dumping waste, etc. > If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off. I agree and in particular, even the invisible majority. Talk to anyone who knows anything about the homeless problem and they'll tell you that homeless people are very frequently victims of crimes themselves. They don't have the shelter or resources to protect themselves, so they are easy picking for criminals. So getting this small number of actively harmful homeless people off the street — remediating them or not — will help improve the quality of life and safety of an even larger number of other homeless people.
  - lostlogin 7y ago
    This has been done before and has a very dark history. Deeming someone criminal and in need of remediation has been an integral part of some very grim historical events. I’m pretty sure I know what you’re arguing for, but how does one avoid it becoming a system whereby undesirables are vanished? Is there somewhere that has a humane and fair system?
    - freedomben 7y ago
      exactly the point I wanted to make. I think there's a huge distinction between voluntary and involuntary as well.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cr0sh 7y ago
What I'd like to know is what has caused (what feels like) the massive increase in our cities of the "visible homeless"? Has there been a policy change, or some other nationwide change that has caused more people to become homeless? What is really going on? I mean, there's always been both visible and "hidden" homeless people in cities - but over about the past 5 years (and it honestly feels like it increased dramatically after Trump became POTUS - but that has to be my imagination) it has gotten to the point where there are mass groups of such people, living in camps, roaming the streets, and some of them have committed crimes - either to pay for more drugs, food, maybe shelter, or just (maybe) in the hopes of being arrested and given a roof over their head. Prior to that, I recall there being a few homeless here and there around my neighborhood and city (Phoenix, in my case), but like I said, this has seemed to change drastically. I have heard rumors (and that's all I know them to be at best) of certain communities in California (typical culprits to the rumors seem to be wealthier areas of the State) paying for buses to transport their homeless to other cities outside California. It seems outlandish, and just another "blame California" excuse the conservatives here would use - but I honestly don't know what the truth is. It might be outlandish, but completely implausible?
- vkou 7y ago
  > I have heard rumors (and that's all I know them to be at best) of certain communities in California (typical culprits to the rumors seem to be wealthier areas of the State) paying for buses to transport their homeless to other cities outside California. It seems outlandish, and just another "blame California" excuse the conservatives here would use - but I honestly don't know what the truth is. It might be outlandish, but completely implausible? In California, you will hear people complaining about every community in the South-West paying for buses to transport their homeless into California. This has occasionally happened, but in a very sporadic way. So, I think that, for the most part, both the Californians, and the non-Californians who believe this are wrong.
- opportune 7y ago
  One reason some homeless people seem to be more brazen is that they are not being policed as heavily, since people have realized how much of a waste of money it is to throw homeless people in jail for minor crimes. So the people who would be bouncing around in/out of jail are spending more time on the streets. And the same nonenforcement policies also enable homeless people to live in encampments that are not immediately shut down Note, I don't think the solution is necessarily to reverse these policies. But this is one explanation for why homelessness seems much more visible now than it used to be. There are other factors increasing homelessness in general, namely substance abuse and increasing housing costs. If you have a poor support network and are living paycheck to paycheck (like most Americans actually do), you are one incident at work + eviction away from homelessness. Substance abuse and untreated mental illness make these worse. Also there are some pernicious cycles that are hard to avoid with homelessness. Namely that homeless people, as you mention, tend to congregate in large wealthy cities that have lots of services for the homeless. These cities tend to have very high rents so it makes getting out of homelessness more difficult as long as they stay in the city.
lonelappde 7y ago
Do you have any basis for your swipe against activists? It's hard to trust your judgment when you freely admit to being ignorant of even the basic terminology of the field of study.

by curtis 7y ago

rolltiide 7y ago

In San Francisco some groups use the term visible homeless as well. I think it is a good start in categorization because there is so much cognitive dissonance between seeing a thing, not understanding what is already being done about a thing, and conflating a dozen other issues as one thing.

sushisource 7y ago

I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms but this really strikes a chord. I'll definitely be using more specific language from now on.

ncallaway 7y ago

> that the biggest problems for the visibly homeless are mental illness and substance abuse. I think there's some reasonable evidence that housing first approaches are extremely helpful in addressing both mental illness and substance abuse. Housing creates an opportunity for both stability and routine, which are incredibly important for getting help and treatment for mental illness and substance abuse. I don't think the evidence is 100% conclusive yet, but I don't think a housing first approach can absolutely be helpful for both populations (but for different reasons!). I do think it makes sense to think about both of these populations, because they definitely don't have the all of the same needs. Pretty much everyone needs shelter and at least a small place to safety store items.

nostromo 7y ago

> But activists are more than willing to conflate the two cases. I work in philanthropy and this is absolutely the case. To most donors and laypeople, a person is homeless if they sleep outdoors, in a car, or in a shelter. But to people who work in this space, a person staying with friends or extended family members can also be considered homeless. This greatly increases the amount of people considered homeless in their reporting.

rootusrootus 7y ago
That is definitely the case in my community. We are not a big city, and we have essentially zero visible homelessness. But the stats for my kids' elementary school says we actually have a fair number of homeless kids. Turns out that's because they are living somewhere that does not qualify as their own home. They still have a place to eat & sleep.
- sgift 7y ago
  It sounds like the reason here is that unlike your home staying somewhere else has a pretty high chance of not being permanent. It's probably a good idea to not state "we have zero homelessness" and a month later people run around "How can there be all these people on the streets?! You said we have no homelessness!"
tathougies 7y ago
> But to people who work in this space, a person staying with friends or extended family members can also be considered homeless. This greatly increases the amount of people considered homeless in their reporting. Well of course, they've made their career in this. If people are no longer homeless under the common definition of the term, these people would be without a job, so they have to do marketing work to change the goal posts to justify their existence.

xenocyon 7y ago

The evidence shows that housing-first policies applied to the worst cases (chronically homeless single people with addiction) is effective and lowers costs, in fact more so than for easier clients (families who have become homeless more recently). However popular outrage culture insists on targeting folks who have addiction with sweeps and incarceration instead, even though the law-and-order response is more expensive and less humane. It seems our urge to punish defeats our willingness to tolerate less retributive evidence-based approaches. Source: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-counting-the-homeless https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-countin...

drak0n1c 7y ago
In Rhode Island they actually prosecute addicts and mentally ill who commit crimes, and offer them the alternative of drug and rehab courts that entail mandatory internment in decent facilities and rehabilitation. They emerge with no record, and no debt to be paid. Many going through the process say it saved their life. The same drug courts and facilities exist on the west coast, but they are underutilized because there is no incentive. No criminal or civil justice funnel. People are just set loose. Intervention helps those who are beyond helping themselves. A free place with no strings attached does not do nearly as much to help those who truly need help.
tmh79 7y ago
I am for the "housing first" approach, but there is a clear moral hazard when you provide free housing to the lowest rung, and then say that the minimum cost of housing for the next group is like 1.5k/bedroom/month.
- hguant 7y ago
  It's important to note that "moral hazard", while not quite a term of art, has a specific meaning in economics that isn't associated with ethics or morality. The quick google definitions: "a lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences" Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

namirez 7y ago

This is very important! A few years ago I was reading about UC Berkeley grad students who were homeless. They slept in their office on campus. When people talk about homelessness, usually their talking about being visibly homeless without knowing it.

masonic 7y ago
They slept in their office on campus. That's not homelessness; that's simple, rational economic behavior. I would have done that in college, too, had that option been available to me, and I would hardly call myself "homeless". Is a student living in a dorm "homeless", now, too?

opportune 7y ago

Only about 15% of homeless in Seattle are "visible". Roughly 50% are sheltered, and of the unsheltered many live in vehicle [0] (though the numbers in this article don't quite add up). I fully agree with you though, a lot of people's frustration with the homeless comes from a vocal minority of problematic unsheltered people with serious mental health issues and/or addiction problems. If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off. [0] https://mynorthwest.com/1402025/homeless-seattle-king-county-count/ https://mynorthwest.com/1402025/homeless-seattle-king-county...?

munificent 7y ago
> a vocal minority More to the point, a criminal minority. It's mostly lawbreaking that makes this minority visible: assault, robbery, theft, dumping waste, etc. > If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off. I agree and in particular, even the invisible majority. Talk to anyone who knows anything about the homeless problem and they'll tell you that homeless people are very frequently victims of crimes themselves. They don't have the shelter or resources to protect themselves, so they are easy picking for criminals. So getting this small number of actively harmful homeless people off the street — remediating them or not — will help improve the quality of life and safety of an even larger number of other homeless people.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  This has been done before and has a very dark history. Deeming someone criminal and in need of remediation has been an integral part of some very grim historical events. I’m pretty sure I know what you’re arguing for, but how does one avoid it becoming a system whereby undesirables are vanished? Is there somewhere that has a humane and fair system?
  - freedomben 7y ago
    exactly the point I wanted to make. I think there's a huge distinction between voluntary and involuntary as well.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cr0sh 7y ago

What I'd like to know is what has caused (what feels like) the massive increase in our cities of the "visible homeless"? Has there been a policy change, or some other nationwide change that has caused more people to become homeless? What is really going on? I mean, there's always been both visible and "hidden" homeless people in cities - but over about the past 5 years (and it honestly feels like it increased dramatically after Trump became POTUS - but that has to be my imagination) it has gotten to the point where there are mass groups of such people, living in camps, roaming the streets, and some of them have committed crimes - either to pay for more drugs, food, maybe shelter, or just (maybe) in the hopes of being arrested and given a roof over their head. Prior to that, I recall there being a few homeless here and there around my neighborhood and city (Phoenix, in my case), but like I said, this has seemed to change drastically. I have heard rumors (and that's all I know them to be at best) of certain communities in California (typical culprits to the rumors seem to be wealthier areas of the State) paying for buses to transport their homeless to other cities outside California. It seems outlandish, and just another "blame California" excuse the conservatives here would use - but I honestly don't know what the truth is. It might be outlandish, but completely implausible?

vkou 7y ago
> I have heard rumors (and that's all I know them to be at best) of certain communities in California (typical culprits to the rumors seem to be wealthier areas of the State) paying for buses to transport their homeless to other cities outside California. It seems outlandish, and just another "blame California" excuse the conservatives here would use - but I honestly don't know what the truth is. It might be outlandish, but completely implausible? In California, you will hear people complaining about every community in the South-West paying for buses to transport their homeless into California. This has occasionally happened, but in a very sporadic way. So, I think that, for the most part, both the Californians, and the non-Californians who believe this are wrong.
opportune 7y ago
One reason some homeless people seem to be more brazen is that they are not being policed as heavily, since people have realized how much of a waste of money it is to throw homeless people in jail for minor crimes. So the people who would be bouncing around in/out of jail are spending more time on the streets. And the same nonenforcement policies also enable homeless people to live in encampments that are not immediately shut down Note, I don't think the solution is necessarily to reverse these policies. But this is one explanation for why homelessness seems much more visible now than it used to be. There are other factors increasing homelessness in general, namely substance abuse and increasing housing costs. If you have a poor support network and are living paycheck to paycheck (like most Americans actually do), you are one incident at work + eviction away from homelessness. Substance abuse and untreated mental illness make these worse. Also there are some pernicious cycles that are hard to avoid with homelessness. Namely that homeless people, as you mention, tend to congregate in large wealthy cities that have lots of services for the homeless. These cities tend to have very high rents so it makes getting out of homelessness more difficult as long as they stay in the city.

lonelappde 7y ago

Do you have any basis for your swipe against activists? It's hard to trust your judgment when you freely admit to being ignorant of even the basic terminology of the field of study.