7 ms·

Who’s homeless enough for housing? In San Francisco, an algorithm decides

20 points by hardmaru 5y ago

kazinator 5y ago
> The system generates a vulnerability score out of 17 based on a set of questions about mental health, physical health and risk factors for chronic homelessness, with the aim of aiding case managers to triage people to appropriate resources. There may be an algorithm embedded in this but the whole process is not an algorithm. It does not have algorithmic inputs.
kenjackson 5y ago
In Seattle we are ramping up on housing. The problem is that a high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing. Many prefer to live in the homeless encampments where they have 100% freedom.
- dhosek 5y ago
  The problem is not that they prefer the homeless encampments, but that a lot of housing comes with onerous strings attached.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Since you seem to know, what are those strings that are attached?
    - strken 5y ago
      I googled this out of interest and found this article: https://sfist.com/2020/11/24/homeless-hotel-residents-face-jail-lite-protocols/ https://sfist.com/2020/11/24/homeless-hotel-residents-face-j... One of the most striking cases was a 70 year old man who was working as a handyman and had his tools confiscated. The building he was in also didn't allow incoming calls or visitors. Other homeless people reported warrantless searches, or anti-drug and alcohol policies which addicts don't want to abide by.
    - screye 5y ago
      Don't abuse substances, don't steal random things off the street and don't commit violent crime. Completely unreasonable requirements /s The problem is the homelessness is an overloaded problem. There are at least 3 different types of homeless people. See here : https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/ikc4zt/homeless_in_seattle/g3jrxr1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/ikc4zt/homeless_... The transient homeless are usually down on their luck need these shelters. They make up the majority and need these resources. The substance abusers and mentally ill both need to be institutions. Both need medical & mental care, and are not fit for interaction with society. This especially applies to those that are severely mentally ill or violent meth addicts. The rest are the 'treatable' type of addict, whose separation from society is not due to unfitness to coexist with people, but so they are prioritized in care, because they are the most treatable.
      - antiyuppy2 5y ago
        Kindly go fuck your mother. You and your entire brood are not fit for society. Please deep throat a shotgun you yuppy techbro douchebag. If I were near you I would already be curb stomping your worthless white trash face. Do some stuff with that data, Bitch. I’ll put your punk ass in an institution.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    I think that's what the 100% freedom was referring to?
    - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
      Yea but saying they expect 100% freedom is implying that they have unreasonable demands like allowing violence. But the actual strings attached are not things many healthy housed people would put up with, like requiring people to leave during the day every day (to go where?) And sleeping next to many total strangers.
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        I guess you're right, maybe it should be they would prefer the normal levels of freedom we associate with human dignity and adulthood.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    “Onerous strings” = “I can’t treat this free housing in the country’s most expensive city like the cardboard box I moved here from, drinking and doing drugs with my buddies and my dogs at 3am”
    - antiyuppy2 5y ago
      Yet it is OK for yuppy tech bros to drink all night long, smoke weed and do coke becsuse they’re rich.
      - spoonjim 5y ago
        Yes. If you’re paying for your lifestyle you can do what you want. If you can’t support yourself and you need someone else’s help, they make the rules.
- mcntsh 5y ago
  Exactly the same in the Bay Area with shelters. There's rules like no drugs, no pets, and strict curfews. And for many it's easier to just sleep in an encampment where no one bothers you, people bring you food, organizations bring you showers, etc.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  > The problem is that a high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing That is not a problem, that is a consequence. And its something you'd have hard time fixing. And if so why not start with homeless that want the housing first? People who what and are helped back into society are going to be net benefit financially, even people who hate others and love money cant argue. Helping those people back up is investment that always pays off. So why is this an issue? Also: > high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing > Many prefer to live in the homeless encampments A snarky Citation Needed. Where did you get that? It not like those people were born homeless and this is their 'lifestyle' majority tripped and felt. Nobody helped them and they are stuck there. Given enough time and they will become disillusioned and resentful of outsiders. Worse get used to living rough. That said, there will be always a % of people who cannot be helped. And that's ok, we can't save everyone.
- BigRedDog1669 5y ago
  The replies to this make it clear that people want to be ignorant of the actual situation. Usually, you are in rooms with other people who you don't know or trust without a secure place to put your belongings. You can only sleep at night and have to leave during the day. Different shelters have different rules and occupancy and you might have to go to several to find one with an opening. During the day you have to find places you can be that you won't be harassed. Repeat. Imagine trying to do this while dealing with medical issues or just shear exhaustion from having no stability. Living in a tent sounds preferable from constantly being on the move. A shelter does not mean you have dedicated space to be in whenever you want.
  - cameronfraser 5y ago
    Shelter and housing are not the same thing, homeless housing always refers to non shelter housing, it's an actual apartment or a house.
    - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
      I was replying to people saying that people prefer to live in tents. This is because no city offers all homeless people non-shelter housing. Usually the amount of actual dignified housing has months or years long waits. In my experience discussions usually criticize homeless people for not accepting "housing", when what is offered is shelters. So housing usually refers erroneously to shelter housing.
dhosek 5y ago
A look at how things work across the bay: https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ https://99percentinvisible.org/need/
paxys 5y ago
The article goes on and on but dances around the actual dilemma. There are ~8,035 homeless people in San Francisco and 225 vacant housing units. You can either allot them on a first come first served basis, or run a lottery, or use some kind of objective criteria (aka "algorithm") to decide who needs it the most. No matter which one you pick, the vast majority of people will be denied housing. Writing feature length articles with nothing more than "this process is bad because it rejects some people" is idiotic. The entire point is prioritization. The article is criticizing social workers for asking personal questions like past incidents of trauma. If they didn't do that, you'd instead read all about how the city doesn't care about abuse victims and is doing nothing to help them. It mentions someone who came here from LA and ended up on the streets, and is criticizing this system because he was put in the back of the queue. This shows another problem – the more/better services you provide, the more vulnerable people you will attract from all over the country. Somehow pull a miracle and actually "solve" the city's homeless crisis? Nevada, Texas, Arizona will very happily send more buses your way.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  There's also the thorny question of why are we trying to house these people in the ~most expensive city in the country? On one hand, we could house several times more in Bakersfield, but on the other, exporting homeless to cheaper places is its own moral dilemma. We also can't induce demand by treating the homeless particularly better than the rest of the country.
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    Singapore is one of the most expensive cities in the world, yet it doesn't have a problem with people sleeping on the street - in true Singapore style it's actually illegal to be homeless, the government has to provide homeless people with housing, and the homeless people have to accept it. Now you can make the argument that Singapore has a number of policies that stop people from becoming homeless in the first place, but I think the most fundamental reason why San Francisco and the US in general has a homelessness problem is because Americans don't feel sufficient shame for living in a city with a large number of homeless people. If Singapore suddenly found itself with the same number of people sleeping on the street as in San Francisco, you can bet that the problem would be solved extremely quickly because people would feel deeply ashamed at living in an environment with such a large number of homeless people.

20 points by hardmaru 5y ago

> The system generates a vulnerability score out of 17 based on a set of questions about mental health, physical health and risk factors for chronic homelessness, with the aim of aiding case managers to triage people to appropriate resources. There may be an algorithm embedded in this but the whole process is not an algorithm. It does not have algorithmic inputs.

kenjackson 5y ago

In Seattle we are ramping up on housing. The problem is that a high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing. Many prefer to live in the homeless encampments where they have 100% freedom.

dhosek 5y ago
The problem is not that they prefer the homeless encampments, but that a lot of housing comes with onerous strings attached.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Since you seem to know, what are those strings that are attached?
  - strken 5y ago
    I googled this out of interest and found this article: https://sfist.com/2020/11/24/homeless-hotel-residents-face-jail-lite-protocols/ https://sfist.com/2020/11/24/homeless-hotel-residents-face-j... One of the most striking cases was a 70 year old man who was working as a handyman and had his tools confiscated. The building he was in also didn't allow incoming calls or visitors. Other homeless people reported warrantless searches, or anti-drug and alcohol policies which addicts don't want to abide by.
  - screye 5y ago
    Don't abuse substances, don't steal random things off the street and don't commit violent crime. Completely unreasonable requirements /s The problem is the homelessness is an overloaded problem. There are at least 3 different types of homeless people. See here : https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/ikc4zt/homeless_in_seattle/g3jrxr1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/ikc4zt/homeless_... The transient homeless are usually down on their luck need these shelters. They make up the majority and need these resources. The substance abusers and mentally ill both need to be institutions. Both need medical & mental care, and are not fit for interaction with society. This especially applies to those that are severely mentally ill or violent meth addicts. The rest are the 'treatable' type of addict, whose separation from society is not due to unfitness to coexist with people, but so they are prioritized in care, because they are the most treatable.
    - antiyuppy2 5y ago
      Kindly go fuck your mother. You and your entire brood are not fit for society. Please deep throat a shotgun you yuppy techbro douchebag. If I were near you I would already be curb stomping your worthless white trash face. Do some stuff with that data, Bitch. I’ll put your punk ass in an institution.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I think that's what the 100% freedom was referring to?
  - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
    Yea but saying they expect 100% freedom is implying that they have unreasonable demands like allowing violence. But the actual strings attached are not things many healthy housed people would put up with, like requiring people to leave during the day every day (to go where?) And sleeping next to many total strangers.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      I guess you're right, maybe it should be they would prefer the normal levels of freedom we associate with human dignity and adulthood.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  “Onerous strings” = “I can’t treat this free housing in the country’s most expensive city like the cardboard box I moved here from, drinking and doing drugs with my buddies and my dogs at 3am”
  - antiyuppy2 5y ago
    Yet it is OK for yuppy tech bros to drink all night long, smoke weed and do coke becsuse they’re rich.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      Yes. If you’re paying for your lifestyle you can do what you want. If you can’t support yourself and you need someone else’s help, they make the rules.
mcntsh 5y ago
Exactly the same in the Bay Area with shelters. There's rules like no drugs, no pets, and strict curfews. And for many it's easier to just sleep in an encampment where no one bothers you, people bring you food, organizations bring you showers, etc.
me_me_me 5y ago
> The problem is that a high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing That is not a problem, that is a consequence. And its something you'd have hard time fixing. And if so why not start with homeless that want the housing first? People who what and are helped back into society are going to be net benefit financially, even people who hate others and love money cant argue. Helping those people back up is investment that always pays off. So why is this an issue? Also: > high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing > Many prefer to live in the homeless encampments A snarky Citation Needed. Where did you get that? It not like those people were born homeless and this is their 'lifestyle' majority tripped and felt. Nobody helped them and they are stuck there. Given enough time and they will become disillusioned and resentful of outsiders. Worse get used to living rough. That said, there will be always a % of people who cannot be helped. And that's ok, we can't save everyone.
BigRedDog1669 5y ago
The replies to this make it clear that people want to be ignorant of the actual situation. Usually, you are in rooms with other people who you don't know or trust without a secure place to put your belongings. You can only sleep at night and have to leave during the day. Different shelters have different rules and occupancy and you might have to go to several to find one with an opening. During the day you have to find places you can be that you won't be harassed. Repeat. Imagine trying to do this while dealing with medical issues or just shear exhaustion from having no stability. Living in a tent sounds preferable from constantly being on the move. A shelter does not mean you have dedicated space to be in whenever you want.
- cameronfraser 5y ago
  Shelter and housing are not the same thing, homeless housing always refers to non shelter housing, it's an actual apartment or a house.
  - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
    I was replying to people saying that people prefer to live in tents. This is because no city offers all homeless people non-shelter housing. Usually the amount of actual dignified housing has months or years long waits. In my experience discussions usually criticize homeless people for not accepting "housing", when what is offered is shelters. So housing usually refers erroneously to shelter housing.

dhosek 5y ago

A look at how things work across the bay: https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ https://99percentinvisible.org/need/

paxys 5y ago

The article goes on and on but dances around the actual dilemma. There are ~8,035 homeless people in San Francisco and 225 vacant housing units. You can either allot them on a first come first served basis, or run a lottery, or use some kind of objective criteria (aka "algorithm") to decide who needs it the most. No matter which one you pick, the vast majority of people will be denied housing. Writing feature length articles with nothing more than "this process is bad because it rejects some people" is idiotic. The entire point is prioritization. The article is criticizing social workers for asking personal questions like past incidents of trauma. If they didn't do that, you'd instead read all about how the city doesn't care about abuse victims and is doing nothing to help them. It mentions someone who came here from LA and ended up on the streets, and is criticizing this system because he was put in the back of the queue. This shows another problem – the more/better services you provide, the more vulnerable people you will attract from all over the country. Somehow pull a miracle and actually "solve" the city's homeless crisis? Nevada, Texas, Arizona will very happily send more buses your way.

dehrmann 5y ago
There's also the thorny question of why are we trying to house these people in the ~most expensive city in the country? On one hand, we could house several times more in Bakersfield, but on the other, exporting homeless to cheaper places is its own moral dilemma. We also can't induce demand by treating the homeless particularly better than the rest of the country.
- zarzavat 5y ago
  Singapore is one of the most expensive cities in the world, yet it doesn't have a problem with people sleeping on the street - in true Singapore style it's actually illegal to be homeless, the government has to provide homeless people with housing, and the homeless people have to accept it. Now you can make the argument that Singapore has a number of policies that stop people from becoming homeless in the first place, but I think the most fundamental reason why San Francisco and the US in general has a homelessness problem is because Americans don't feel sufficient shame for living in a city with a large number of homeless people. If Singapore suddenly found itself with the same number of people sleeping on the street as in San Francisco, you can bet that the problem would be solved extremely quickly because people would feel deeply ashamed at living in an environment with such a large number of homeless people.