13 ms·

I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at le

I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Around here, the brass ring of housing is Section 8, and Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. If you're not abiding by the rules then you're out on your ear. I don't know how many people wash out, but my case managers have inundated me with certificates and kudos for being one of their best, longest-term clients. Housing First type approaches is great, and I'm glad to hear that they've "ended homelessness", even though that seems to sort of be contradicted by the 20% figure that was constantly cited in the article.

wkat4242 3y ago
Finland is a very different society than the US. It's mostly rural (megacities like in the US don't exist) and very very cold in winter (and even summer isn't the best). Welfare is high. People don't live on the street because they want to. The mental illness is a bigger issue but here in Europe most countries have pretty decent healthcare for everyone (even the ones without money) so they don't have to be dumped on the street. Those people usually live their lives in institutions or assisted group living homes depending on their level of capability. Drug abuse is probably the biggest cause of homelessness here but it's not that common compared to the US. Alcohol abuse is but it's treated similar to mental illness with decent care.
- linuxdude314 3y ago
  In the US, this all comes down to the Reagan era decision to stop funding asylums. The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment, now they are forced onto the street.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    > The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment I think you meant to say “used to be locked up”
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Provided with shelter? Check. There's only so much you can do, no brain debugger+hot patcher invented yet.
      - gattilorenz 3y ago
        It’s not a binary choice between living on the street and mandatory internment in something that resembles a prison, which is what I suspect was happening earlier. Other countries solve it by having protected communities, with more or less supervision and independence depending on the condition.
        jlawson 3y ago
        What do those communities look like for people whose "condition" is the worst? The ones who won't accept treatment but desperately need it, and are a danger to themselves and others.
    - raverbashing 3y ago
      It's hard for some to accept that yes, some people do need in-patient mental care and possibly for an extended period of time "prayer" or "social support" or whatever isn't a substitute for IV anti-psychotics Yes there was abuse, and yes that should have been curbed.
      - 3y ago
- Maxion 3y ago
  > It's mostly rural Not really any more than the US, the vast majority of people live in cities, or in this triangle zone between Turku, Tampere, and Helsinki.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Those cities can't really be compared to the cities in the US though. But yeah calling it rural was not the best description. I agree. I was referring to the huge open areas of course.
    - tuukkah 3y ago
      The US has huge open areas too. Actually, the biggest difference might be public transport: as long as they live in a decent city, you can give people transit passes and they can start to visit doctors, apply for jobs etc. like anyone else.
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      Sure they can. US cities are not uniform. For example Helsinki has roughly the population and metro density of Providence, Rhode Island. Finland may not have a New York or San Francisco, but that doesn't mean there's not good comparisons anywhere in the US.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  >(1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. I don't think anyone is comfortable in a tent in finnish winter. I think mental issue is one of the big thing, article mention conselling is offered, which is good. Additionnally some people often end up in the streets because they simply don't know their rights and that they can apply for social services. Many euro countries social services will take over payment of a home, basic insurance and needs, "supposedly" enough to have sonething to est everyday. But usually to get that you need a bank account and to habe a bank account you need a physical address. Many end up in the streets because they are at some point in a mental state where they are overwhelmed by the paper work stuff or ashamed to ask for help. Or because it takes too long to get the aforementionned help because of administrative delays.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    From what I've seen online, Finnish winters don't seem to be any worse than Minneapolis, which will have tent encampments all through winter. They often aren't broken up and forced into shelters unless we get an especially bad cold snap; activists argue that forcing people out of tents means they lose possessions and are worse off. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/we-just-want-to-be-warm-activists-call-on-minneapolis-to-stop-winter-homeless-encampment-evictions/ https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/we-just-want-to-be-wa... https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/homeless-camp-residents-ask-city-for-reprieve/89-2a72b1ef-770c-49dc-8c88-208d4648181e https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/homeless-camp-resi... There's a very tough residence among the "permanent" homeless to any program that offers housing, because it will come with some strings attached. Those with mental health issues fear (wrongly) that they will be involuntarily committed to an asylum or something similar. Others don't want to be forced to try to get a job, or give up drugs. The "temporary" homeless can, and do, make use of the help the government and non-profit organizations provide. Job training, free bus passes, assistance with rent, food, hygiene etc. Some in-between will always float back and forth. If they stick to their medicine, they can live pretty independently, but since they don't like the side effects, sooner or later they stop, have a psychotic break, and end up back on the street until a family member finds them and convinced them to get help again. At least, this is my understanding from someone who works for a program whose funding and sole mission is to the homeless in Minneapolis.
- fulafel 3y ago
  Finland has a (slightly) higher urbanization % than the USA according to https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization . Winter temps in the most populated south seem to be a bit warmer than Chicago and similar to Beijing - so not arctic or anything.
- usr1106 3y ago
  Well, mega cities don't exist if the whole country is only 5 million. Still, urbanization has been strong since the 1960s and has not stopped. The rural areas are getting truly depopulated. The vast majority of Finns lives in and around cities where you don't know your neighbors.
linuxdude314 3y ago
Are you bragging about your long term section 8 housing status?
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  It's hard to believe that's what you took away from that comment.
  - ransackdev 3y ago
    I have nothing against welfare, I ate as a kid because of food stamps, but he has a point. Personal ambition and goals aside, wouldn’t the goal be to support you until you’re able to fully support yourself, so that those funds can be used to help another person in need so they can get to a better place in life as well?
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      That's a goal for many participants, yes. In my case, I have a disability, I work part-time, and my parents support me too, and Section 8 still pays some rent because I'm not able to cover it all, even after that. And my situation has reached maximum improvement. There's a Family Self-Sufficiency program which is great. They provide resources for education and employment and stuff, and they escrow some funds which are usually awarded when you "graduate" from the program. Graduation entails raising income so far that your benefits cease and you are officially self-sufficient. They've recounted many success stories over the years. Mostly younger folks who hit a rough patch, but then got through college for a degree and then a great full-time job. I'm in the program, but I don't expect to ever graduate or see my escrowed funds. The FSS program is actually run by HUD as a funnel for first-time homebuyers. They encourage you to use the escrow as a down payment on a house. I will certainly say that as my income has increased and benefit decreased, that has undoubtedly freed up funds to help many other people, so I do my part by keeping income as high as humanly possible. I don't know about corruption. They do want people in the program to stay that way, of course. It's mandatory to report income, so every time I report an increase, my benefit goes down, and certainly I could be assured that if I blew the lid off that, my benefit would go away, and I'd be done with the program. I haven't encountered anyone enticing me to lie or conceal anything. YMMV, of course, because these programs are all run at the municipal level, so corruption in some places isn't going to translate to corruption all over.
risyachka 3y ago
#3 is not a problem at all as it can be trivially enforced. #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov. They don't pay bill/rent there so no anathema here.And when they start having income - pretty sure most will gladly pay rent/bills to not lose their comfort as people get used to comfort very very quickly.
- spondyl 3y ago
  > #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov First off, the following is all anecdotal based on some articles I read a few years back now so take it with a grain of salt. New York had a program to house the homeless in hotels after running the numbers and concluding it would be cheaper to do so in the long run compared to the medical expenses and so on incurred. As part of that, I believe somewhere between 5 - 10% of people would persistently return to the streets despite having shelter provided. Most homeless are people in a dark period of their lives and get back on their feet with some aid to break the bootstrapping problem. A small portion however are considered to always end up there despite any help for whatever reason whether it's mental illness, drug use and so on. Of course, I'm not citing any links and I'm probably misremembering so I'd encourage you to do some more searching if you're interested. It seems like the NYC Hotel program was disestablished recently too.
- alt227 3y ago
  #3 is in fact a massive problem and the reason 90% of shelters shut down. Most of the homeless people I have ever spoken to avoid government welfare centers and homeless shelters purely because they attract the type of people who take advantage of the genuinely vulnerable people who are looking for help. They say that they feel much safer out on the street and that their stuff is much less likely to be stolen than in a shelter. I have known more than one person who has been involved in setting up a charity and shelter for the homeless with the best of intentions, only for it to close a year later due to violence and drug reelated crime.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Sounds like a difference between providing shelters for some vs. individual homes for all.
noelwelsh 3y ago
I think "ending homelessness" is a great slogan, and in politics the voting public generally don't go for nuance. What is reasonable and achievable is reducing homelessness to those who want to live on the streets. Alternatively, everyone who wants to live in an house has access to one. This is, I imagine, the real goal of the program.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  Being a nomad is not the same as being homeless. Go to downtown SF and I guarantee you zero of those people have chosen to live on the streets.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    What is "choice"? Almost everyone living on the streets is there because of a series of choices which they made, usually over a long time frame. Perhaps at the time they were not entirely voluntary choices, or conscious choices, but cumulatively they have chosen a certain pathway that led them to losing their income, job, belongings, and housing. Even an abused wife who's been dumped out by her husband, well, she did choose that husband. Obviously there is nobody who rises from a warm bed one morning, says "screw all this!" sells all they have and goes to rough it on the streets (except, perhaps, for Saint Francis of Assisi, but he found something productive to do.) I spent a lot of time Downtown hanging out with minors, and one day my good friend who's a dad confided to me something surprising. He said "Most of these kids aren't homeless or runaways, you know. Most of them are from wealthy neighborhoods and have good parents, but they come out here just to mingle." So it was like Future Runaways of America out there. And make no mistake, the area has a huge effort of outreach to runaways and homeless minors. Once someone winds up on the streets, more choices are offered. Those choices can either drive a person deeply into a hole from which they will never recover and never get off the streets, or they could just keep them going while they can stabilize and find needed services, and begin a process to get off the streets. Many people will pursue the former. Even if they pursue the latter course, they may not make it. And then you have people who realize, hey, this life is ok for me. I guess I don't mind it so much, and it's not worth trying to get housed. So they stay as-is for the rest of their lives.
Mizoguchi 3y ago
I heard Section 8 is also plagged by corruption (directly by a friend with acquittances in the program in the DC metro area). From what I understood and remember, many people working in the program are watching after their careers in goverment. There are various bands for compensation and benefits that are tied to performance metrics. One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy, so what ends up happening is once you bring people into the program and fill all of your spots you leave them there even after their situation has improved and they are technically no longer qualified for housing benefits, this way you can report full occupancy year after year which helps your performance. Obviously those in need of housing are left out.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy I do not understand why managers would be incentivized to keep people in who shouldn't be in. Because there is a huge demand on the front end! People are clamoring for vouchers! I was on a waiting list for at least two years. The waiting lists only open at designated times, and for short periods. The number of people who qualify is enormous, and there are various factors in qualifying for how quickly your number comes up. When I attended an orientation (which was 10 Black men/women and White me) the word was that vacancies were very low, and a lot of participants were having trouble just finding housing that would accept the voucher. I was an outlier because I was merely transferring programs, and had already secured housing of my choice. I suppose it could go either way. Are people having trouble finding vacancies because of corrupt managers? Or something else? Anyway, if demand is that far above supply, I don't see any reason why Section 8 couldn't maximize its occupancy year over year no matter, what their turnover rate.
silvestrov 3y ago
> 2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves This is reduced a lot by early intervention, i.e. always provide housing and always provide free healthcare. It is so much easier to handle being "slightly mentally ill" when you can trust 100% that you will always have housing, healthcare and enough money for food, clothes and other necessities. If you can do 90%, then government can provide you with last 10% by paying rent automatically and having a social worker visit once a week. This fixes problems early compared to you becoming homeless. There is a lot of steps between "fully functional middle class person" and "mental institution".
- BbzzbB 3y ago
  Let's be real here, some people can't even do 10% let alone 90%. And than some people are severely mentally ill or addicted, not "slightly". I don't think GP is saying they're not doing a good job, but that "ending homelessness" sounds like a euphemism.
  - silvestrov 3y ago
    If you can "fix" 95% of people by providing housing, then handling the remaining 5% is much easier. These problems do not scale linearly. It is also surprising how much drug addicts and mentally ill can do when the basics has been taken care of.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      First, it may not be 95 and 5 percent. Second, thats not whats asserted by “Finland ends homelessness.” The assertion is that homelessness doesn’t exist there. So it seems like these cases are unaccounted for.
      - true_religion 3y ago
        I feel it’s like how employment statistics don’t include people not looking for work… if all the people who want housing get it, then homelessness has been eliminated. Someone who has a house but chooses not to live in it isn’t homeless.
bertil 3y ago
I definitely want to echo wkat4242’s answers: - Most of your concerns are already taken care of by healthcare, notably psychiatry that is free and well funded (people who work there would disagree, but everyone who needs to see a doctor will), social services (same), unemployment and professional training programs. - It’s below freezing most of the year. There cannot be any rough sleeping: either you are inside, or people pick up your frozen body in the morning. If you end up too drunk to go home (which happens alarmingly often: substance abuse is a huge problem, more than anywhere else) hospitals have drunk tanks and Police officers or ambulances will be more than happy to drive you there before you hurt yourself or others. They are not uncomfortable, just… “easy to clean” and in an odd pink colour. You get coffee in the morning. What that program actually did was admit that shelters were not working and replaced them with individual flats. Finns’ staunch individualism probably explain that more than anything. (It also explains the substance abuse… anyway.) - I’m not sure that how rural Finland is super relevant, but it is true: the country was going through rural exodus (what happened in the UK in early 19th century) _this decade_; it doesn’t really mean there’s a village life that disappeared (people don’t talk to their neighbours) but it has contributed to a big real estate boom. Outside of two streets in downtown Helsinki, there isn’t a building that wasn’t built recently—as in, with internet. Therefore, having slats for homeless people is actually a small fraction of the new homes. The second key thing about Finns (after their lack of social appetite) is their passion for design. Key people in the country: famous people, CEOs, etc. are designers, the way famous people in France, Germany, China, Japan and Korea are engineers and lawyers in the UK and US. > your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here That’s the thing: all flats are well designed and minimalistic. There isn’t much you can damage. This might change as the real estate portfolio ages, but it’s not a major concern now–not compared to having to step over a frozen body in the morning. The 20% is because, even if the program is summarised as “give them a home”, they are not signing title documents on day 1. They likely need help, so while they are de facto occupants with full rights to develop their sense of belonging, on paper they still have a status that roughly translates to ‘homeless’ and formally, they rent for a minimal amount and hardly any eviction clauses.
vidarh 3y ago
> People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom This is the significant distinction between providing crappy shelter and providing a home. A lot of shelter spaces come with a lot of strings, and the first step to fixing the issues is to accept that you need to cut many or most of the strings - if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you're offering, perhaps the "help" isn't all that helpful. If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types Is it worse having them in a house than on the streets? And how much of a problem is this going to be when everyone involved have their own shelter? It's only a windfall if you provide it to a few rather than everyone who needs housing.
- thechao 3y ago
  My rabbi used to say that "charity with strings is just a bad job"; it's not charity if it's not given unconditionally.
  - throw9away6 3y ago
    If the person you provide charity to uses it to inflict harm on themselves and others is it really charitable?
    - thechao 3y ago
      They’re a person, not a puppet. I think you might be surprised at how little a budget is required for someone to harm themselves; some say it’s free!
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  1) should actually be “some people just want to be homeless.” Including people who could already return to a nice, clean home, but do not. So that remains unexplained.
antegamisou 3y ago
> (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. This has to be the most peak late stage capitalism shit I've ever read here. It's not a terrible idea to keep a few things to oneself I guess...
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Have you ever actually studied hobo culture or anything? I mean there have been whole classes of people, let's include the Romani, Bedouins, and Travellers, who love itinerant lifestyles and are, for all intents and purposes, "homeless people" who find a means of supporting themselves that doesn't involve sticking around in one place. They are all, of course, universally reviled by capitalists and communists alike, but whatever.
  - antegamisou 3y ago
    There is no population that actively rejects any form of housing (cardboard boxes excluded) and if there is, they definitely aren't moving to large urban areas en masse. And even if it's the case that they were formerly sheltered but 'decided' to be homeless again, it's probably the shelter provider that didn't do a great job at accommodating them. In any case, cultural opposition to housing is a pretty weak argument to make in order to express despair where your valuable taxpayer money goes to.
MrStonedOne 3y ago
[dead]
waihtis 3y ago
We simply don't have 1) and 2) - 1) nobody fancies freezing to death and 2) mentally ill people like you have do not exist over here. I can think of a maximum of 5 occurences in the past 10 years I've seen someone roaming on the street yelling obscenities, something you see on every block in SF. 3) The state will nurse you happily until death no matter how irresponsible you are. Truth it is has turned into a problem long ago which will be very painful to reverse.
elif 3y ago
(1) is a byproduct of being on the streets for a long time to begin with. people get comfortable in prison too, its just human adaptability. less people on the streets = less people "comfortable" on the streets. (2) that is why the Finnish model requires free counseling. (3) if every person has the same access to a council flat, why would you need to share? This seems to be a problem with the american style limited voucher system.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
usrbinbash 3y ago
> I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: None of these problems are the majority of homless people. There are always some where special care is needed, or for whom nothing works no matter what level of care.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  But #2 is why we are having this discussion in the US now.
watwut 3y ago
> (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Afaik, it is much easier to help these two groups when they do have access to safe and stable housing. Conversely, their issues get much worst when they are homeless. As in, if you intend to help these people, giving them housing is pretty reasonable start. > like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something Prostitution is legal in Finland. Second, drug raids is what cops do, not what homeless do. The homeless may do the drug use part, I am just pointing out you picked the phenomenom that is done by somebody else.
dghughes 3y ago
#3 There is a well-known group of "homeless" people here who beg around my small town. Aggressive towards mainly little old ladies leaving church, a bank, or drug store. The all sit on blue milk crates and have signs claiming no food, no home etc. but you see them being dropped off and picked up by a car each day. They beg while browsing the Web on your mobile phone isn't convincing of their plight. And you see them in local clubs too living it up with piles of cash. Supposedly homeless but I guess some could be and just a temp sharing of a room or couch in a rundown apartment. They continually smash things in it like the sink and walls, doors, etc (I know this because I know someone who knows the company who maintains the building). Laws prevent eviction if it's cold outside. I'd say many people would be all for homes to assist homeless rather than parks and sidewalks covered in tents. But I'd say they everyone doesn't because they feel we are all being conned. Which prevents the majority of homeless from getting help. >Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. Sounds good but I've seen how many people who live on the street have become wise to gaming the system. It's a skill they learn to survive so I can't imagine a clueless civil servant here knowing how to spot that. One woman I knew was frighteningly good at it. She had six kids from five or six different men most dead from drugs, she continually stole from stores, but always got sympathy when she turned on the tears. She had a full-time job for most of the time government housing since she had kids. I just checked court records and see she was pregnant yet again by some scumbag two years before she died.
- mikem170 3y ago
  You just listed some bad andecdotes. A half empty glass. What about contrary data? What about all the people living paycheck to paycheck who just lost their job? What about people fleeing a bad domestic situation? What about the single mom living with her two kids in a car? What about the divorcees paying child support who can only afford to live in their car? What about people struggling with disabilities and no support network? What about the person in the section 8 apartment nearby doesn't bother anybody? Realistically there are all kinds of homeless people out there. Some can be easily helped. Some can handle the responsibilities imposed by the modern world. Some can't. Demonizing them all isn't fair.
jmyeet 3y ago
> People are comfortable on the streets Ugh, I don't know if you're American or not but this is such an American take. It springs from the idea that homeless people prefer the streets to, say, a shelter without examining why that might be true. Shelters are dangerous [1]. They also often come with forced indoctrination and/or highly restrictive curfews and the high risk of your things being stolen. None of these things are a factor if you give people permanent shelter. There might be people who have lived on the streets so long they have serious mental health issues or it's greatly exacerbated existing mental health issues. In either case, isn't it better to remove people from the streets before this happens? Also, this is the minority. Why would we not give permanent housing to the majority who have simply been priced out of the housing market because of a few with mental health issues because or (or worsened by) their homeless situation? > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction Again, this can be paraphrased as "we can't give people housing because some of them can't manage housing because of the issues created by not having housing". Just think about that for a second. You don't seem the majority of homeless people. Why? Because they're at the first or second stage of homeless, which is couchsurfing (or other temporary accomodation) or living in their car, respectively. Addiction often comes after becoming homeless. Why? Self-medication in a desperate situation. > So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types This is NIMBY propaganda. If everyone has shelter, why is there a reason to one house to become a flop house for "shady types"? Basically, this argument boils down to "we can't give anyone shelter because we can't give everyone shelter". It's a deflection tactic. Don't fall for it. The real problem here is that Americans (in particular) view poverty and homelessness as a moral failure and personal failing. It's not. It's the result of the profit motive for a basic human necessity. It can be remarkably cheap to make a substantial difference for homeless people [2]. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c... [2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-pro...
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
>> 1) People are comfortable on the streets Finnish winter takes care of that item
sampo 3y ago
> paying rent/bills seems anathema to them Social services can pay rent and utility bills directly, so the person receiving rent assistance does not have the option to forget to pay the bills. > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction People with mental illness are typically assigned to an assisted living care home, or mental health institution, involuntarily. This is common in Europe. I understand, in America, involuntary institutionalization is pretty much a taboo.

wkat4242 3y ago

Finland is a very different society than the US. It's mostly rural (megacities like in the US don't exist) and very very cold in winter (and even summer isn't the best). Welfare is high. People don't live on the street because they want to. The mental illness is a bigger issue but here in Europe most countries have pretty decent healthcare for everyone (even the ones without money) so they don't have to be dumped on the street. Those people usually live their lives in institutions or assisted group living homes depending on their level of capability. Drug abuse is probably the biggest cause of homelessness here but it's not that common compared to the US. Alcohol abuse is but it's treated similar to mental illness with decent care.

linuxdude314 3y ago
In the US, this all comes down to the Reagan era decision to stop funding asylums. The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment, now they are forced onto the street.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  > The mentally handicapped used to receive treatment I think you meant to say “used to be locked up”
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Provided with shelter? Check. There's only so much you can do, no brain debugger+hot patcher invented yet.
    - gattilorenz 3y ago
      It’s not a binary choice between living on the street and mandatory internment in something that resembles a prison, which is what I suspect was happening earlier. Other countries solve it by having protected communities, with more or less supervision and independence depending on the condition.
      - jlawson 3y ago
        What do those communities look like for people whose "condition" is the worst? The ones who won't accept treatment but desperately need it, and are a danger to themselves and others.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    It's hard for some to accept that yes, some people do need in-patient mental care and possibly for an extended period of time "prayer" or "social support" or whatever isn't a substitute for IV anti-psychotics Yes there was abuse, and yes that should have been curbed.
    - 3y ago
Maxion 3y ago
> It's mostly rural Not really any more than the US, the vast majority of people live in cities, or in this triangle zone between Turku, Tampere, and Helsinki.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Those cities can't really be compared to the cities in the US though. But yeah calling it rural was not the best description. I agree. I was referring to the huge open areas of course.
  - tuukkah 3y ago
    The US has huge open areas too. Actually, the biggest difference might be public transport: as long as they live in a decent city, you can give people transit passes and they can start to visit doctors, apply for jobs etc. like anyone else.
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    Sure they can. US cities are not uniform. For example Helsinki has roughly the population and metro density of Providence, Rhode Island. Finland may not have a New York or San Francisco, but that doesn't mean there's not good comparisons anywhere in the US.
prmoustache 3y ago
>(1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. I don't think anyone is comfortable in a tent in finnish winter. I think mental issue is one of the big thing, article mention conselling is offered, which is good. Additionnally some people often end up in the streets because they simply don't know their rights and that they can apply for social services. Many euro countries social services will take over payment of a home, basic insurance and needs, "supposedly" enough to have sonething to est everyday. But usually to get that you need a bank account and to habe a bank account you need a physical address. Many end up in the streets because they are at some point in a mental state where they are overwhelmed by the paper work stuff or ashamed to ask for help. Or because it takes too long to get the aforementionned help because of administrative delays.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  From what I've seen online, Finnish winters don't seem to be any worse than Minneapolis, which will have tent encampments all through winter. They often aren't broken up and forced into shelters unless we get an especially bad cold snap; activists argue that forcing people out of tents means they lose possessions and are worse off. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/we-just-want-to-be-warm-activists-call-on-minneapolis-to-stop-winter-homeless-encampment-evictions/ https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/we-just-want-to-be-wa... https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/homeless-camp-residents-ask-city-for-reprieve/89-2a72b1ef-770c-49dc-8c88-208d4648181e https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/homeless-camp-resi... There's a very tough residence among the "permanent" homeless to any program that offers housing, because it will come with some strings attached. Those with mental health issues fear (wrongly) that they will be involuntarily committed to an asylum or something similar. Others don't want to be forced to try to get a job, or give up drugs. The "temporary" homeless can, and do, make use of the help the government and non-profit organizations provide. Job training, free bus passes, assistance with rent, food, hygiene etc. Some in-between will always float back and forth. If they stick to their medicine, they can live pretty independently, but since they don't like the side effects, sooner or later they stop, have a psychotic break, and end up back on the street until a family member finds them and convinced them to get help again. At least, this is my understanding from someone who works for a program whose funding and sole mission is to the homeless in Minneapolis.
fulafel 3y ago
Finland has a (slightly) higher urbanization % than the USA according to https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization . Winter temps in the most populated south seem to be a bit warmer than Chicago and similar to Beijing - so not arctic or anything.
usr1106 3y ago
Well, mega cities don't exist if the whole country is only 5 million. Still, urbanization has been strong since the 1960s and has not stopped. The rural areas are getting truly depopulated. The vast majority of Finns lives in and around cities where you don't know your neighbors.

linuxdude314 3y ago

Are you bragging about your long term section 8 housing status?

School-Cotton 3y ago
It's hard to believe that's what you took away from that comment.
- ransackdev 3y ago
  I have nothing against welfare, I ate as a kid because of food stamps, but he has a point. Personal ambition and goals aside, wouldn’t the goal be to support you until you’re able to fully support yourself, so that those funds can be used to help another person in need so they can get to a better place in life as well?
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    That's a goal for many participants, yes. In my case, I have a disability, I work part-time, and my parents support me too, and Section 8 still pays some rent because I'm not able to cover it all, even after that. And my situation has reached maximum improvement. There's a Family Self-Sufficiency program which is great. They provide resources for education and employment and stuff, and they escrow some funds which are usually awarded when you "graduate" from the program. Graduation entails raising income so far that your benefits cease and you are officially self-sufficient. They've recounted many success stories over the years. Mostly younger folks who hit a rough patch, but then got through college for a degree and then a great full-time job. I'm in the program, but I don't expect to ever graduate or see my escrowed funds. The FSS program is actually run by HUD as a funnel for first-time homebuyers. They encourage you to use the escrow as a down payment on a house. I will certainly say that as my income has increased and benefit decreased, that has undoubtedly freed up funds to help many other people, so I do my part by keeping income as high as humanly possible. I don't know about corruption. They do want people in the program to stay that way, of course. It's mandatory to report income, so every time I report an increase, my benefit goes down, and certainly I could be assured that if I blew the lid off that, my benefit would go away, and I'd be done with the program. I haven't encountered anyone enticing me to lie or conceal anything. YMMV, of course, because these programs are all run at the municipal level, so corruption in some places isn't going to translate to corruption all over.

risyachka 3y ago

#3 is not a problem at all as it can be trivially enforced. #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov. They don't pay bill/rent there so no anathema here.And when they start having income - pretty sure most will gladly pay rent/bills to not lose their comfort as people get used to comfort very very quickly.

spondyl 3y ago
> #2 its hard to imagine someone being more comfortable on the street that in a housing provided by the gov First off, the following is all anecdotal based on some articles I read a few years back now so take it with a grain of salt. New York had a program to house the homeless in hotels after running the numbers and concluding it would be cheaper to do so in the long run compared to the medical expenses and so on incurred. As part of that, I believe somewhere between 5 - 10% of people would persistently return to the streets despite having shelter provided. Most homeless are people in a dark period of their lives and get back on their feet with some aid to break the bootstrapping problem. A small portion however are considered to always end up there despite any help for whatever reason whether it's mental illness, drug use and so on. Of course, I'm not citing any links and I'm probably misremembering so I'd encourage you to do some more searching if you're interested. It seems like the NYC Hotel program was disestablished recently too.
alt227 3y ago
#3 is in fact a massive problem and the reason 90% of shelters shut down. Most of the homeless people I have ever spoken to avoid government welfare centers and homeless shelters purely because they attract the type of people who take advantage of the genuinely vulnerable people who are looking for help. They say that they feel much safer out on the street and that their stuff is much less likely to be stolen than in a shelter. I have known more than one person who has been involved in setting up a charity and shelter for the homeless with the best of intentions, only for it to close a year later due to violence and drug reelated crime.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Sounds like a difference between providing shelters for some vs. individual homes for all.

noelwelsh 3y ago

I think "ending homelessness" is a great slogan, and in politics the voting public generally don't go for nuance. What is reasonable and achievable is reducing homelessness to those who want to live on the streets. Alternatively, everyone who wants to live in an house has access to one. This is, I imagine, the real goal of the program.

ransackdev 3y ago
Being a nomad is not the same as being homeless. Go to downtown SF and I guarantee you zero of those people have chosen to live on the streets.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  What is "choice"? Almost everyone living on the streets is there because of a series of choices which they made, usually over a long time frame. Perhaps at the time they were not entirely voluntary choices, or conscious choices, but cumulatively they have chosen a certain pathway that led them to losing their income, job, belongings, and housing. Even an abused wife who's been dumped out by her husband, well, she did choose that husband. Obviously there is nobody who rises from a warm bed one morning, says "screw all this!" sells all they have and goes to rough it on the streets (except, perhaps, for Saint Francis of Assisi, but he found something productive to do.) I spent a lot of time Downtown hanging out with minors, and one day my good friend who's a dad confided to me something surprising. He said "Most of these kids aren't homeless or runaways, you know. Most of them are from wealthy neighborhoods and have good parents, but they come out here just to mingle." So it was like Future Runaways of America out there. And make no mistake, the area has a huge effort of outreach to runaways and homeless minors. Once someone winds up on the streets, more choices are offered. Those choices can either drive a person deeply into a hole from which they will never recover and never get off the streets, or they could just keep them going while they can stabilize and find needed services, and begin a process to get off the streets. Many people will pursue the former. Even if they pursue the latter course, they may not make it. And then you have people who realize, hey, this life is ok for me. I guess I don't mind it so much, and it's not worth trying to get housed. So they stay as-is for the rest of their lives.

Mizoguchi 3y ago

I heard Section 8 is also plagged by corruption (directly by a friend with acquittances in the program in the DC metro area). From what I understood and remember, many people working in the program are watching after their careers in goverment. There are various bands for compensation and benefits that are tied to performance metrics. One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy, so what ends up happening is once you bring people into the program and fill all of your spots you leave them there even after their situation has improved and they are technically no longer qualified for housing benefits, this way you can report full occupancy year after year which helps your performance. Obviously those in need of housing are left out.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> One of the metrics for managers running Section 8 is level of occupancy I do not understand why managers would be incentivized to keep people in who shouldn't be in. Because there is a huge demand on the front end! People are clamoring for vouchers! I was on a waiting list for at least two years. The waiting lists only open at designated times, and for short periods. The number of people who qualify is enormous, and there are various factors in qualifying for how quickly your number comes up. When I attended an orientation (which was 10 Black men/women and White me) the word was that vacancies were very low, and a lot of participants were having trouble just finding housing that would accept the voucher. I was an outlier because I was merely transferring programs, and had already secured housing of my choice. I suppose it could go either way. Are people having trouble finding vacancies because of corrupt managers? Or something else? Anyway, if demand is that far above supply, I don't see any reason why Section 8 couldn't maximize its occupancy year over year no matter, what their turnover rate.

silvestrov 3y ago

> 2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves This is reduced a lot by early intervention, i.e. always provide housing and always provide free healthcare. It is so much easier to handle being "slightly mentally ill" when you can trust 100% that you will always have housing, healthcare and enough money for food, clothes and other necessities. If you can do 90%, then government can provide you with last 10% by paying rent automatically and having a social worker visit once a week. This fixes problems early compared to you becoming homeless. There is a lot of steps between "fully functional middle class person" and "mental institution".

BbzzbB 3y ago
Let's be real here, some people can't even do 10% let alone 90%. And than some people are severely mentally ill or addicted, not "slightly". I don't think GP is saying they're not doing a good job, but that "ending homelessness" sounds like a euphemism.
- silvestrov 3y ago
  If you can "fix" 95% of people by providing housing, then handling the remaining 5% is much easier. These problems do not scale linearly. It is also surprising how much drug addicts and mentally ill can do when the basics has been taken care of.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    First, it may not be 95 and 5 percent. Second, thats not whats asserted by “Finland ends homelessness.” The assertion is that homelessness doesn’t exist there. So it seems like these cases are unaccounted for.
    - true_religion 3y ago
      I feel it’s like how employment statistics don’t include people not looking for work… if all the people who want housing get it, then homelessness has been eliminated. Someone who has a house but chooses not to live in it isn’t homeless.

bertil 3y ago

I definitely want to echo wkat4242’s answers: - Most of your concerns are already taken care of by healthcare, notably psychiatry that is free and well funded (people who work there would disagree, but everyone who needs to see a doctor will), social services (same), unemployment and professional training programs. - It’s below freezing most of the year. There cannot be any rough sleeping: either you are inside, or people pick up your frozen body in the morning. If you end up too drunk to go home (which happens alarmingly often: substance abuse is a huge problem, more than anywhere else) hospitals have drunk tanks and Police officers or ambulances will be more than happy to drive you there before you hurt yourself or others. They are not uncomfortable, just… “easy to clean” and in an odd pink colour. You get coffee in the morning. What that program actually did was admit that shelters were not working and replaced them with individual flats. Finns’ staunch individualism probably explain that more than anything. (It also explains the substance abuse… anyway.) - I’m not sure that how rural Finland is super relevant, but it is true: the country was going through rural exodus (what happened in the UK in early 19th century) _this decade_; it doesn’t really mean there’s a village life that disappeared (people don’t talk to their neighbours) but it has contributed to a big real estate boom. Outside of two streets in downtown Helsinki, there isn’t a building that wasn’t built recently—as in, with internet. Therefore, having slats for homeless people is actually a small fraction of the new homes. The second key thing about Finns (after their lack of social appetite) is their passion for design. Key people in the country: famous people, CEOs, etc. are designers, the way famous people in France, Germany, China, Japan and Korea are engineers and lawyers in the UK and US. > your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here That’s the thing: all flats are well designed and minimalistic. There isn’t much you can damage. This might change as the real estate portfolio ages, but it’s not a major concern now–not compared to having to step over a frozen body in the morning. The 20% is because, even if the program is summarised as “give them a home”, they are not signing title documents on day 1. They likely need help, so while they are de facto occupants with full rights to develop their sense of belonging, on paper they still have a status that roughly translates to ‘homeless’ and formally, they rent for a minimal amount and hardly any eviction clauses.

vidarh 3y ago

> People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom This is the significant distinction between providing crappy shelter and providing a home. A lot of shelter spaces come with a lot of strings, and the first step to fixing the issues is to accept that you need to cut many or most of the strings - if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you're offering, perhaps the "help" isn't all that helpful. If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types Is it worse having them in a house than on the streets? And how much of a problem is this going to be when everyone involved have their own shelter? It's only a windfall if you provide it to a few rather than everyone who needs housing.

thechao 3y ago
My rabbi used to say that "charity with strings is just a bad job"; it's not charity if it's not given unconditionally.
- throw9away6 3y ago
  If the person you provide charity to uses it to inflict harm on themselves and others is it really charitable?
  - thechao 3y ago
    They’re a person, not a puppet. I think you might be surprised at how little a budget is required for someone to harm themselves; some say it’s free!
nonethewiser 3y ago
1) should actually be “some people just want to be homeless.” Including people who could already return to a nice, clean home, but do not. So that remains unexplained.

antegamisou 3y ago

> (1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent/bills seems anathema to them. This has to be the most peak late stage capitalism shit I've ever read here. It's not a terrible idea to keep a few things to oneself I guess...

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Have you ever actually studied hobo culture or anything? I mean there have been whole classes of people, let's include the Romani, Bedouins, and Travellers, who love itinerant lifestyles and are, for all intents and purposes, "homeless people" who find a means of supporting themselves that doesn't involve sticking around in one place. They are all, of course, universally reviled by capitalists and communists alike, but whatever.
- antegamisou 3y ago
  There is no population that actively rejects any form of housing (cardboard boxes excluded) and if there is, they definitely aren't moving to large urban areas en masse. And even if it's the case that they were formerly sheltered but 'decided' to be homeless again, it's probably the shelter provider that didn't do a great job at accommodating them. In any case, cultural opposition to housing is a pretty weak argument to make in order to express despair where your valuable taxpayer money goes to.

MrStonedOne 3y ago

[dead]

waihtis 3y ago

We simply don't have 1) and 2) - 1) nobody fancies freezing to death and 2) mentally ill people like you have do not exist over here. I can think of a maximum of 5 occurences in the past 10 years I've seen someone roaming on the street yelling obscenities, something you see on every block in SF. 3) The state will nurse you happily until death no matter how irresponsible you are. Truth it is has turned into a problem long ago which will be very painful to reverse.

elif 3y ago

(1) is a byproduct of being on the streets for a long time to begin with. people get comfortable in prison too, its just human adaptability. less people on the streets = less people "comfortable" on the streets. (2) that is why the Finnish model requires free counseling. (3) if every person has the same access to a council flat, why would you need to share? This seems to be a problem with the american style limited voucher system.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

usrbinbash 3y ago

> I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I've observed around here: None of these problems are the majority of homless people. There are always some where special care is needed, or for whom nothing works no matter what level of care.

ajmurmann 3y ago
But #2 is why we are having this discussion in the US now.

watwut 3y ago

> (2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can't manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends/family. > (3) People are naturally generous/irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun. Afaik, it is much easier to help these two groups when they do have access to safe and stable housing. Conversely, their issues get much worst when they are homeless. As in, if you intend to help these people, giving them housing is pretty reasonable start. > like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something Prostitution is legal in Finland. Second, drug raids is what cops do, not what homeless do. The homeless may do the drug use part, I am just pointing out you picked the phenomenom that is done by somebody else.

dghughes 3y ago

#3 There is a well-known group of "homeless" people here who beg around my small town. Aggressive towards mainly little old ladies leaving church, a bank, or drug store. The all sit on blue milk crates and have signs claiming no food, no home etc. but you see them being dropped off and picked up by a car each day. They beg while browsing the Web on your mobile phone isn't convincing of their plight. And you see them in local clubs too living it up with piles of cash. Supposedly homeless but I guess some could be and just a temp sharing of a room or couch in a rundown apartment. They continually smash things in it like the sink and walls, doors, etc (I know this because I know someone who knows the company who maintains the building). Laws prevent eviction if it's cold outside. I'd say many people would be all for homes to assist homeless rather than parks and sidewalks covered in tents. But I'd say they everyone doesn't because they feel we are all being conned. Which prevents the majority of homeless from getting help. >Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. Sounds good but I've seen how many people who live on the street have become wise to gaming the system. It's a skill they learn to survive so I can't imagine a clueless civil servant here knowing how to spot that. One woman I knew was frighteningly good at it. She had six kids from five or six different men most dead from drugs, she continually stole from stores, but always got sympathy when she turned on the tears. She had a full-time job for most of the time government housing since she had kids. I just checked court records and see she was pregnant yet again by some scumbag two years before she died.

mikem170 3y ago
You just listed some bad andecdotes. A half empty glass. What about contrary data? What about all the people living paycheck to paycheck who just lost their job? What about people fleeing a bad domestic situation? What about the single mom living with her two kids in a car? What about the divorcees paying child support who can only afford to live in their car? What about people struggling with disabilities and no support network? What about the person in the section 8 apartment nearby doesn't bother anybody? Realistically there are all kinds of homeless people out there. Some can be easily helped. Some can handle the responsibilities imposed by the modern world. Some can't. Demonizing them all isn't fair.

jmyeet 3y ago

> People are comfortable on the streets Ugh, I don't know if you're American or not but this is such an American take. It springs from the idea that homeless people prefer the streets to, say, a shelter without examining why that might be true. Shelters are dangerous [1]. They also often come with forced indoctrination and/or highly restrictive curfews and the high risk of your things being stolen. None of these things are a factor if you give people permanent shelter. There might be people who have lived on the streets so long they have serious mental health issues or it's greatly exacerbated existing mental health issues. In either case, isn't it better to remove people from the streets before this happens? Also, this is the minority. Why would we not give permanent housing to the majority who have simply been priced out of the housing market because of a few with mental health issues because or (or worsened by) their homeless situation? > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction Again, this can be paraphrased as "we can't give people housing because some of them can't manage housing because of the issues created by not having housing". Just think about that for a second. You don't seem the majority of homeless people. Why? Because they're at the first or second stage of homeless, which is couchsurfing (or other temporary accomodation) or living in their car, respectively. Addiction often comes after becoming homeless. Why? Self-medication in a desperate situation. > So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types This is NIMBY propaganda. If everyone has shelter, why is there a reason to one house to become a flop house for "shady types"? Basically, this argument boils down to "we can't give anyone shelter because we can't give everyone shelter". It's a deflection tactic. Don't fall for it. The real problem here is that Americans (in particular) view poverty and homelessness as a moral failure and personal failing. It's not. It's the result of the profit motive for a basic human necessity. It can be remarkably cheap to make a substantial difference for homeless people [2]. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c... [2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-pro...

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

>> 1) People are comfortable on the streets Finnish winter takes care of that item

sampo 3y ago

> paying rent/bills seems anathema to them Social services can pay rent and utility bills directly, so the person receiving rent assistance does not have the option to forget to pay the bills. > People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction People with mental illness are typically assigned to an assisted living care home, or mental health institution, involuntarily. This is common in Europe. I understand, in America, involuntary institutionalization is pretty much a taboo.