3 ms·

Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. For the economically disadvantaged, of course providing free or low cost housing is helpful and welcome.

Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. For the economically disadvantaged, of course providing free or low cost housing is helpful and welcome. But for the majority, who have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues, a shelter or home often makes little difference. Witness for example the experiment in Manhattan to provide some homeless men with hotel rooms. They literally go downstairs to poop in the street, harass or attack passersby, and trash the hotel. There's not a one-size-fits-all solution to homelessness. What we really need is restoration of residential mental care facilities that were largely torn down in the 1970s in favor of mainstreaming the mentally ill. We also need some kind of analog to the old rooming house districts where men down on their luck could get a bed and a hot meal for a dollar or so. What we don't need is the status quo which is ripping apart the social fabric of our society.

badrabbit 6y ago
You're absolutley wrong, various studies have been done that prove not only does no strings attached housing reduce homelesness, it is cheaper than having shelters and other economic costs. Finland is already doing this: https://english.best/toeic/exercise/finlands-radical-solution-to-homelessness/ https://english.best/toeic/exercise/finlands-radical-solutio...
- gridlockd 6y ago
  That study shows providing housing for free results only in a 35% reduction. Like the GP said, some people can be helped, others not so much.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    And it's cheaper! 35% is a lot. That figure will likely be a lot higher given the lack of safetynets in the US already that result in homelessness.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Well, I wasn't trying to argue against "no strings attached housing". Actually, there used to be a lot of low-cost/no-cost options including the aforementioned dirt-cheap rooming houses, mental care residential facilities (including voluntary and involuntary incarceration), and shelters run by nuns and the like. Note that some of this still exists today but not the same scale as before. I'm afraid also that Finland's socio-economic situation is rather different from that of the U.S. Up until quite recently, they have had a homogeneous culture, a much smaller population, and more social stability, versus the U.S. with its vast and highly diverse population and relative instability. I don't see how a Finnish solution would quite fit our situation, though we should of course study their methodology since they tend to have good ideas :)
kirse 6y ago
Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. It does though. Cities like Philadelphia and states like Utah solve it this way and both the homeless per capita + the return-to-homeless rate are nationally very low: Together with our many nonprofit partners, the City provides 11,503 emergency, temporary and permanent “beds.” Last year we helped 970 families and individuals from-homeless-to-housed. Our permanent housing programs have an average 90% success rate in preventing a return to homelessness. http://philadelphiaofficeofhomelessservices.org/know-homelessness/ http://philadelphiaofficeofhomelessservices.org/know-homeles...
- john_moscow 6y ago
  From my experience in Europe, providing housing only works together with very low tolerance to substance abuse and disorderly behavior. I can image conservative Utah having very similar attitude. IMO, the SF public sees the right to disturb others as an extension of personal liberties, and hence this solution won't work very well.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    No strings attached includes substance abuse and criminal activity. No strings. They get a roof over their head anyways. I mean you'd think people would be excited about homeless people pooping in their free housing instead of on the sidewalk.
- gsehhju 6y ago
  It really depends on the underlying cause of the homelessness. I live in SF, and have spent a considerable amount of time getting a homeless friend lined up with two different housing options - the 16th Street Hotel (SRO), and the Washburn House. Both were fully paid for by SSDI, and in both cases he left voluntarily to live outside, due to mental health reasons.
DanBC 6y ago
> Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. For the economically disadvantaged, of course providing free or low cost housing is helpful and welcome. > But for the majority, who have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues, a shelter or home often makes little difference. I'd question your stats about mental illness and substance misuse disorder, but even if we accept that most homeless people are either mentally ill, or addicted, or both: how do you expect them to engage with treatment when they're living on the street? "Homes first" is a key part of many homeless health programmes. See this example, called "housing first": https://hfe.homeless.org.uk/about-housing-first https://hfe.homeless.org.uk/about-housing-first > is restoration of residential mental care facilities that were largely torn down in the 1970s in favor of mainstreaming the mentally ill. We really really don't need to go back to the days of asylums that held people for many years for relatively mild mental ill health.
- jeffdn 6y ago
  We don't want to go back to that, but the replacement of that system with a choice between homelessness or incarceration hasn't exactly been a success. There has to be a better way.
  - biztos 6y ago
    The link in the post you are replying to claims to be a better way. (I agree but I'm not an expert.)
- novok 6y ago
  %90 of homeless are not the chronic homeless, it's the ~%10 chronic that really need mental health care that are ruining it for everyone. The numbers are also very low, around 10k 'chronics' for the entire bay area as far as I remember. You need different solutions for different types. The poor / down on their luck types are definitely helped by free housing.

badrabbit 6y ago

You're absolutley wrong, various studies have been done that prove not only does no strings attached housing reduce homelesness, it is cheaper than having shelters and other economic costs. Finland is already doing this: https://english.best/toeic/exercise/finlands-radical-solution-to-homelessness/ https://english.best/toeic/exercise/finlands-radical-solutio...

gridlockd 6y ago
That study shows providing housing for free results only in a 35% reduction. Like the GP said, some people can be helped, others not so much.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  And it's cheaper! 35% is a lot. That figure will likely be a lot higher given the lack of safetynets in the US already that result in homelessness.
blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Well, I wasn't trying to argue against "no strings attached housing". Actually, there used to be a lot of low-cost/no-cost options including the aforementioned dirt-cheap rooming houses, mental care residential facilities (including voluntary and involuntary incarceration), and shelters run by nuns and the like. Note that some of this still exists today but not the same scale as before. I'm afraid also that Finland's socio-economic situation is rather different from that of the U.S. Up until quite recently, they have had a homogeneous culture, a much smaller population, and more social stability, versus the U.S. with its vast and highly diverse population and relative instability. I don't see how a Finnish solution would quite fit our situation, though we should of course study their methodology since they tend to have good ideas :)

kirse 6y ago

Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. It does though. Cities like Philadelphia and states like Utah solve it this way and both the homeless per capita + the return-to-homeless rate are nationally very low: Together with our many nonprofit partners, the City provides 11,503 emergency, temporary and permanent “beds.” Last year we helped 970 families and individuals from-homeless-to-housed. Our permanent housing programs have an average 90% success rate in preventing a return to homelessness. http://philadelphiaofficeofhomelessservices.org/know-homelessness/ http://philadelphiaofficeofhomelessservices.org/know-homeles...

john_moscow 6y ago
From my experience in Europe, providing housing only works together with very low tolerance to substance abuse and disorderly behavior. I can image conservative Utah having very similar attitude. IMO, the SF public sees the right to disturb others as an extension of personal liberties, and hence this solution won't work very well.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  No strings attached includes substance abuse and criminal activity. No strings. They get a roof over their head anyways. I mean you'd think people would be excited about homeless people pooping in their free housing instead of on the sidewalk.
gsehhju 6y ago
It really depends on the underlying cause of the homelessness. I live in SF, and have spent a considerable amount of time getting a homeless friend lined up with two different housing options - the 16th Street Hotel (SRO), and the Washburn House. Both were fully paid for by SSDI, and in both cases he left voluntarily to live outside, due to mental health reasons.

DanBC 6y ago

> Unfortunately, giving the homeless homes doesn't work. For the economically disadvantaged, of course providing free or low cost housing is helpful and welcome. > But for the majority, who have mental illness and/or substance abuse issues, a shelter or home often makes little difference. I'd question your stats about mental illness and substance misuse disorder, but even if we accept that most homeless people are either mentally ill, or addicted, or both: how do you expect them to engage with treatment when they're living on the street? "Homes first" is a key part of many homeless health programmes. See this example, called "housing first": https://hfe.homeless.org.uk/about-housing-first https://hfe.homeless.org.uk/about-housing-first > is restoration of residential mental care facilities that were largely torn down in the 1970s in favor of mainstreaming the mentally ill. We really really don't need to go back to the days of asylums that held people for many years for relatively mild mental ill health.

jeffdn 6y ago
We don't want to go back to that, but the replacement of that system with a choice between homelessness or incarceration hasn't exactly been a success. There has to be a better way.
- biztos 6y ago
  The link in the post you are replying to claims to be a better way. (I agree but I'm not an expert.)
novok 6y ago
%90 of homeless are not the chronic homeless, it's the ~%10 chronic that really need mental health care that are ruining it for everyone. The numbers are also very low, around 10k 'chronics' for the entire bay area as far as I remember. You need different solutions for different types. The poor / down on their luck types are definitely helped by free housing.