Anyway, housing first is a proven method for resolving the cycle of homelessness[0]. Rather than placing restrictions on people (get sober, get a job, etc) to access shelter, putting people in a stable home environment right off the bat has greater success at keeping people housed long-term.
I learned about a study on housing first and one of the primary champions of the initiative in a fantastic podcast series called According to Need, by the 99% Invisible crew. It's an eye-opening look at the beuracracy that keeps people unhoused when they seek help[1]. Bonus points that it's reported on in the Bay Area, where the problem is completely out of control. Episode three deals with housing first, but I'd really recommend listening to the entire series if you have the time.
"However, for the chronically homeless population, which represents about 10 percent of the homeless population, research has shown, and our experience has been, that when these individuals have a place of their own where they can be safe, the drinking and drug use decreases. Also, with effective case management support, we have found a positive supportive community is created in the single site locations."[2]
[0] https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Research... [1] https://99percentinvisible.org/need/ [2] https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/07/1...
It’s still probably the best idea we have going, but it’s not without significant downsides. Where I live, many small time landlords who have agreed to participate in programs like this with the city have had to evict the tenants placed with them because they made the entire property unlivable for other people through actions like smoking meth in their apartments, letting their dealers move in with them, or in one case, piling all their belongings into the bathtub and lighting them on fire in a state of meth induced psychosis.
In Portland, there is a large housing complex called Bud Clark Commons that provides low barrier housing to the homeless. Since it was constructed, the area around it has become far more dangerous than it was before. There are hundreds of tents surrounding it, meth dealers operating openly from RVs, and trash strewn all around the area. But what’s really interesting about Bud Clark Commons is that the staff actually struggles to keep people there. People cycle in and out, often leaving to return to the streets voluntarily.
It’s really depressing to consider, but it seems clear that some of the people living on our streets have been fundamentally changed in such a way that will make it extremely difficult for them to find their way back into society again. Especially for addicts, the call of euphoric oblivion right outside the door seems very hard to resist in the long term.
Housing first doesn't work, shelter first probably does.
I'd expect something like: You get 1 year of "housing-first"-style free housing with no requirements, then you get 1 year of "tough love" free housing with sobriety and job-search requirements, then you get kicked out.
People with complex issues have variable amount of time to resolve it. Can't put a time on it. But you can figure what cost you more and how much you value human dignity within that cost framework.
So an arbitrary time limit in this case does not make sense as a government public welfare policy.
Until you actually implement it and discover that the problem isn't housing, it's drug use and mental health. After all, homeless individuals have "stable" housing in their encampments (which is why they form in the first place).
And then you realize that the problem isn't solved until you can force the individual into rehab or into treatment, which you can't do because the homeless advocates will fight you in court to prevent treatment and cite stories like the above, but these homeless advocates are the reason why the bureaucracy doesn't work.
Mental health care or substance use treatment just cannot be very effective if a person doesn't have a safe, climate-controlled place to be and keep their stuff. If policy insists that the mental health or substance use must be addressed prior to housing support, then money is being wasted. More importantly, people who could have gotten better under a housing first system are being denied the chance to do so.
Homeless advocates are not the reason for the failures of housing policy. There's barely any of them and they have basically no power. It seems strange to blame them when all they do is ensure that people's rights are upheld, and clearly there are much larger forces at play.
As someone who works in human services, forced treament almost always leaves the person being subjected to it worse off; it's used to satisfy the needs/biases of providers. Once someone is isolated from their supports, that's when they are most vulnerable. Providers treat people as objects to fulfill their own incentives; abuse runs rampant.
The idea that we could fix homelessness if we just canceled the human and legal rights of people who are homeless is a terrifying take. If this ethical stance is unconvincing, please know that it would cost more and be even less effective in helping people.
You know what the most effective way of treating homeless drug addicts is? Forcing them into rehab, while incarcerated.
You know what the most effective way of treating mental illness is? Forcing them into mental hospitals where they are forcibly medicated.
You know what the least effective way of treating mental illness and addiction is (of the ways where some sort of action is taken)? Housing first. Because it focuses on the wrong problem: it focuses on the symptom (homelessness) and not the cause of the homelessness (drug addiction or mental illness).
If housing first worked, then permanent shelter assignments would be the quick and easy fix to the homeless problem.
The idea that we could fix homelessness if we just canceled the human and legal rights of people who are homeless is a terrifying take. If this ethical stance is unconvincing, please know that it would cost more and be even less effective in helping people.
This is the kind of silly belief that keeps the mentally ill and the addicted on the streets, shitting themselves and being eaten by rats and preyed on by rapists and drug dealers. Human rights are an theoretical concern for the homeless, not a tangible one.
A lot of rampant predatory quackery involved when forcing therapy and medication on those with no means of recourse, too.
Since you are appealing to your authority: I have worked with the homeless. I have also been homeless. I know firsthand what works and what doesn't. You are wrong.
> You know what the most effective way of treating homeless drug addicts is? Forcing them into rehab, while incarcerated.
> You know what the most effective way of treating mental illness is? Forcing them into mental hospitals where they are forcibly medicated.
Both of these are absolutely false, both in my experience and according to every study I've ever come across. Involuntary treatment, whether physically forced or coerced by denying certain benefits, almost never has successful outcomes. Why would it? Recovery is an active process that cannot be forced onto someone.
> You know what the least effective way of treating mental illness and addiction is (of the ways where some sort of action is taken)? Housing first. Because it focuses on the wrong problem: it focuses on the symptom (homelessness) and not the cause of the homelessness (drug addiction or mental illness).
You're now arguing with a strawman. Housing first claims to be neither mental health care, nor substance use treatment. It just makes those things dramatically easier. As I said in my first comment, housing first programs always offer mental health and subsrance use support in addition to the housing.
It should be self-evident that navigating treatment is easier when you have a safe, consistent place to live. It's easier to get mail fron Medicaid and other supports (and you should know that you can lose your benefits if you don't respond to certain pieces of mail!). It's easier to have providers arrange transportation to and from appointments. You have a physical boundary you can set with people who are triggers for unhealthy behavior. And it just takes off a massive cognitive load so you can focus mental energy on recovery.
> If housing first worked, then permanent shelter assignments would be the quick and easy fix to the homeless problem.
Be consistent. Don't compare it to "quick and easy". Give an honest, apples-to-apples comparison to your suggested alternative.
If we take all the permanent housing assignments after forced treatment, are those "quick and easy solutions"? No, long-term success rates are abysmal.
Housing first isn't a magical spell, it just works better, at a lower cost, with less authoritarianism than the alternatives.
> This is the kind of silly belief that keeps the mentally ill and the addicted on the streets, shitting themselves and being eaten by rats and preyed on by rapists and drug dealers. Human rights are an theoretical concern for the homeless, not a tangible one.
No, it's the hardass mindset which you're advocating that prevents sufficient funding toward evidence based approaches. Having safe, stable housing one controls reduces the chances that someone will be "eaten by rats" or "raped". We've tried what you're proposing and it was a human rights disaster.
During my time in the system, I avoided seeking help at times because I knew I might get psychiatrically locked up and lose my job. That's my human rights being a tangible concern.
It's very cavalier of you to suggest other people's human rights are "theoretical concerns". Thank goodness our (including anyone who is homeless, me, and you) human rights are legal, and not subject to what you deem "theoretical". They matter to me, and to the people who I support in my work.
Involuntary treatment, whether physically forced or coerced by denying certain benefits, almost never has successful outcomes. Why would it? Recovery is an active process that cannot be forced onto someone.
Absolutely false. It has worked 100% of the time I have seen it forced upon my clients (in every case because as their legal guardian I made that decision for them).
Every single one of my clients was happy that they were forced into treatment. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they didn't want to be mentally ill, but when their illness surfaced they couldn't make the decision to take their medications or go in for treatment. And the addicts abjectly refused to voluntarily get treatment because they were absolutely terrified of the effects of withdrawal, which in almost every case required hospital settings to manage.
But once they were sane/sober again, they were glad that I made the decision for them, because they absolutely preferred sanity and sobriety over the alternatives but couldn't get their on their own.
Housing first isn't a magical spell, it just works better, at a lower cost, with less authoritarianism than the alternatives.
This is false. LA County spends many multiples on its housing first strategy than it does when it simply commits someone to a mental hospital. Not surprisingly, mental hospitals are cheaper and more effective than housing first.
And critically, you ignore a very crucial thing about your housing first mantra: it only works for those individuals whose addictions or mental illnesses are mild enough that they can handle their own rehabilitation or medication, or in other words, a very small minority of the mentally ill and homeless in LA County.
It's very cavalier of you to suggest other people's human rights are "theoretical concerns".
When someone is so far gone that they're shitting themselves in the middle of a busy downtown street, their "human rights" are purely theoretical given the likelihood that they will die very shortly.
Thank goodness for people like me who ignore the theoretical human rights concerns so that these homeless/addicts can get the treatment they need and actually survive long enough, and be sober/sane enough, for their human rights to actually matter to them.
Sounds cheaper as well compared to the policing and emergency hospital bills needed to deal with them as well.
I honestly think the drug problem is more powerful and detrimental than homelessness itself. The drug trade definitely feeds on homelessness, but it would likely still find a vulnerable population if homeless people were eliminated.
In LA 3 times more homeless people died than in NYC.
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/three-times-more...
You can call or email Lourdes Morales in the non-partisan CA LAO if you're truly interested.
Note that nearly 1/4 of the entire United States homeless population currently resides in California. The state deals with homelessness at a scale/complexity that makes advice like "we should have better government" and "people should be accountable" not very helpful.
There's also the factor that it is a nation-wide problem. Once city can't solve it, if they did everyone would just go there.
How does an inner city lefty being against such a law (which just seems to be criminalizing extreme poverty), put them in league with the people who don't want a social safety net and so are placing people in that very situation?
Isn't it cheaper to give them food than to lock them in prison ... and then give them food?
More specifically, supporting the mentally ill to refuse treatment. Later (as you allude), they will vocally support not enforcing various quality of life laws that have been broken. Logically, these two things are in conflict. Either the mentally ill are competent to make decisions, or they aren't... pick one.
This, combined with lack of funding are the primary hurdles to helping these folks get into places to care for them. I would also support other subsets of the homeless population to be helped. But, a lot of people prefer them just where they are apparently. The results of their actions speak louder than words.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row...
His example is someone who's mother tried to kill him.
> And I said to him, "I know the story. I've read the records. I know that she tried to kill you." I said, "But I've always wondered whether you really actually remember that." I said, "I don't remember anything from when I was five years old. Maybe you just remember somebody telling you."
16:46 > And he looked at me and he leaned forward, and he said, "Professor," -- he'd known me for 12 years, he still called me Professor. He said, "Professor, I don't mean any disrespect by this, but when your mama picks up a butcher knife that looks bigger than you are, and chases you through the house screaming she's going to kill you, and you have to lock yourself in the bathroom and lean against the door and holler for help until the police get there," he looked at me and he said, "that's something you don't forget."
most “work” a lot flying signs out in the heat to make a few bucks, some drink it all away.. some use it to try and get the hell out of town. some are just so into survival mode they don’t know any better
but what i find the most interesting is how most are just nice people.
you wouldn’t know that by reading this thread.
most homeless people just want to talk, share their stories and have a friend. They’re tired of being arrested for sleeping. They’re tired of their stuff being stolen - a lot of their mental issues stem from lack of sleep and filling that void with drugs and booze..
it’s unfortunate how people get treated and this thread is no exception to people perpetuating their high and mighty views of a world they know nothing about - merely to protect their world view that dehumanizes these people.
if being without a home is decriminalized and we work to build systems that support these people they wouldn’t be under bridges and in parks.. they sometimes get pushed into camps but those camps rarely give glimpses of hope and service but rather make them feel like outcasts. and everyone is a NIMBY when it comes to this - the OP being no exception to it.
They don’t care about people, they care about appearances and property values and thus nothing will ever change or happen.
This is my experience too. Which is a testament to the human spirit, given how shunned they are.
> a lot of their mental issues stem from lack of sleep
I lose it after a few nights of bad sleep in my comfy bed, in my warm secure bedroom. I'd be such a wreck on the cold hard concrete.
everyone can be helped, you just don’t want to be bothered. Some people need professional help but again, why start the discussion off with jobs and money when those people with severe mental issues probably don’t have either?
what’s interesting is they views your behavior as disruptive. Go watch a hobo or homeless youtube channel and they will describe you to the T - slave to wages, kids with problems and bills and credit card statements to look forward to but instead of breaking fee of that we do more to protect it.
ahh well.. i’ll never change your mind.. but you can go change it yourself by volunteering and fining things out first hand instead of assuming.
> they views your behavior as disruptive
That's great, but they are not the majority and I and many others will continue to vote for policies and politicians that remove people like them from our cities. For example, many cities in SoCal empower their police to actively remove homeless. I have a feeling the 2022 election will only strengthen these initiatives.
> slave to wages
Some of us actually enjoy our jobs - what a concept!
And maybe homeless encampments are the absolute worst place for someone struggling with mental health or drug issues, heightening the risk of every injury and surrounding them with enablers.
Examples I've dealt with personally: human shit on the front steps of my building, almost daily. Kids can't play outside because there are needles on the ground. Multiple neighbors' catalytic converters stolen, sometimes multiple times. Stolen cars without license plates. Entire encampments catching on fire. Bikes stolen from locked garages. Neighbors threatened with guns.
Where I live, there's a large part of the homeless population who refuses help from social services and won't go to shelters. I get it, shelters are shitty, but these people prefer to do drugs. I'm not the type of person who wants to call for forced institutionalization, but that almost feels like it would be more humane than the conditions these people are living in today.
This isn't a NIMBY issue, and until you've experienced it right outside your own house, you may not understand how bad the conditions can be.
Stolen property, burglary/robbery, biohazard in the form of feces on sidewalks, and potential unprovoked violence are hardly just "an aesthetic inconvenience" in minds of most people.
There are only so many times you can step over a potentially dead person on a running trail. Only to have them get up and run away when you look closely even from a distance.
There's only so many times you can watch a huge person crawl out from the canals and start following people around the neighborhood before you consider moving your wife and kids away forever. Don't get me started on the actual assaults and threats that he's made.
Or how about the guy who was standing beside my car with a can of gas, just looking at it swaying back and forth when we were leaving the beach. Where do my kids go when I go confront him and try to retrieve our ride?
How many times can you shrug off a break in to the mail room where all the mail is just ransacked.
That's only a couple years.
You can have empathy in abstract. But when you're in the middle of it, the 99% sob stories don't matter, the lack of public safety does. And what's most infuriating is that it's not a 'place'. these problems drift like garbage on waves, collecting in random locations, esp 'safe' neighborhoods, until they are scattered away again, usually not by police because God forbid they risk actual protests from people who don't live in the affected area. (see echo Park protests).
I have never seen an emaciated homeless person. I do not excuse “stealing to eat” when soup kitchens, food banks, and food stamps are available as alternatives to crime.
You are just stating the left-wing version of the common and tired right-wing "but protesters were spreading covid, despite caring about covid" trope.
Exact same type of a "i just observed an interesting contradiction" statement, just a different theme/reason used as a justification for the dismissal.
Both are rather pointless, as they bring nothing valuable to the discussion and just derail the conversation into a flamewar on those topics used in the "observations", rather than the actual topic at hand. Seen it way too many times in covid-related threads last year on HN.
Yeah, you're right. I think it's time for me to turn on "noprocrast" and get back to work.
I mean, I am double-vaxxed with a booster, and I never threw a hissy fit when establishments required masks, I wore them. So yeah, you are making a rather strong assumption about me there.
> never mind how many well-off pet owners leave their dog's poop on sidewalks
I would be extremely delighted if there was more enforcement regarding this one as well, so I don't know why you are saying this as if it was some "gotcha" moment.
Rather curious why you ended up hyperfocusing on the "biohazard" aspect of my comment, as opposed to the rest of the "aesthetic inconveniences" (which, to a lot of people, would be a bit more problematic than the "biohazard" one).
Whenever I see discussions of the unhoused brought up online poop is frequently mentioned (and often called a hazard or biohazard). I just find that this is ironic given the gnashing of teeth that happened over mask and vaccine mandates over the past 2 years. That's why I focused on the biohazard aspect - it seems as though we as a society have decided we're ok with endangering each other with airborne viruses, why the double standard for the unhoused?
I think your other points are, overall, stronger.
As someone who spent some time homeless during the peak of a past heroin addiction, I can tell you that the comment you replied to comes across a lot more grounded than yours.
I don't blame people for keeping their distance. "only 1 in 100 is dangerous" is very cold comfort when you encounter hundreds every week.
Forty percent chance of a dangerous encounter/week is too much imho
You probably walk past rapists, pedophiles and murderers all the time without putting yourself at any serious risk.
I think the top comment up the chain has already mentioned one approach, which is "chop up stolen bikes". There are plenty of other options, but that one would be a solid start. Given the typical price of the kind of bikes that get stolen and chopped, that's a pretty solid income for drugs.
Seattle's local news station had an interesting coverage last year on the topic of stolen bikes specifically[0]. Take a look at the following quote:
> “So we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 bikes all reported stolen in the Seattle area,” says Hance. “Not all of them have prices. This one does. It’s $5,000 bucks. This one’s $1,500. This one’s $5,000. This one’s $900.”
Obviously the stolen ones will be selling for cheaper than the prices you see above. But even if we say that the stolen price is only 25% of the real cost (totally guessing, as i have no idea for the price conversion of stolen to clean), that's still quite plenty for drug money.
0. https://www.kiro7.com/news/jesse-jones/stolen-bikes-can-be-a...
The first person is an addict who chops up stolen bikes. The second person has untreated mental health issues. The third person came to LA with no money or employment because the weather was nicer.
They've all had struggles and we need better support for all of them, but nothing surprising here. It is nice to get a more individualized and personal background on each, it's easy to dehumanize when you're walking by and afraid of who is the 1-in-100 that's dangerous.