> At the same time, according to the Puget Sound Business Journal, the Seattle metro area spends more than $1 billion fighting homelessness every year. That’s nearly $100,000 for every homeless man, woman, and child in King County, yet the crisis seems only to have deepened, with more addiction, more crime, and more tent encampments in residential neighborhoods. By any measure, the city’s efforts are not working.
For incarceration costs:
https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/200-AR001.p...
About $110/day (so $40,150/year)
Often these funds go towards housing people so they are no longer homeless, so you might have X people who are currently homeless, but Y people relying on that $1B to remain housed.
Because of that, it's inaccurate to divide $1B by X and then claim that's how much going towards individuals who are still homeless anyway, when it is more accurate to divide that figure by X+Y.
It isn't like that money is being flushed down a hole, results are being had on an individual basis, but for reasons that are nationwide in scope, the overall problem (# of homeless people on the streets of Seattle) isn't getting any better.
National problems require national solutions, but half the senate is perfectly happy to offload the cost of social ills onto coastal metros.
Think about how monumentally worse the problem might be if they didn't spend that money. There are very likely tens of thousands more people who would be homeless if not for government support/programs. Just imagine how many people would be on the streets in a week if EI and disability income streams were cut.
We, as a society, as responsible for this situation, because we allowed a company to turn hundreds of thousands of people into drug addicts, and let all of the company executives walk away without any repercussions.
We have two options, both of which are bottomless pits:
1. Do nothing, and pay the costs associated with drug addicts being left untreated (shelters, prisons, run down portions of cities, lowered property values) 2. Treat people
One of those options may cost a lot, but it also improves everyone's lives. I don't understand why this choice is so hard for some folks.
It won't happen though, because of regulatory capture, and general lobbying / corruption.
We need to address the source and the problem at the same time. Regulatory capture doesn't really apply here, but lobbying (which is synonymous with corruption at this point) definitely does. Fixing the citizen's united issue would be a proper start at addressing the lobbying problem.
If you were a doctor would your response to a patient in unbearable pain be, “Sorry, can’t help you”?
Tying success to "progress on their addiction" is also puritan brainworms, sorry.
A lot of US stuff seems to rely on punitive monitoring and "you relapsed, back to square one" nonsense, like a game of snakes and ladders. But with a body count.
Some people will never recover. Some will. Some will take fucking ages.
Being an addict and being a mostly functional, productive member of society are not mutually exclusive.
The actual ways to start fixing this problem are unfortunately, rather unpalatable to voters despite being cheaper in the long run.
Here's the thing. Heroin is dirt cheap to make at a controlled quality - its used in hospitals as diamorphine for end of life care, and some other uses.
State supply of heroin to heroin addicts is a policy that has been tested in the UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, and elsewhere at various points and it fucking works.
Decriminalization of possession with referral to addiction services is a policy that has worked phenomenally in Portugal.
Housing-first policies have worked out fantastically in Finland.
Putting supervised/safe injection rooms and needle exchanges in areas where addicts actually are (as opposed to where they are not) also works to reduce issues like people nodding off on the street, smoking up on buses, needles being discarded everywhere, etc.
Another point to note: the vast majority of addicts don't want to be addicts.
Those who do get off the drugs often relapse.
A vanishingly small minority don't want to get off the stuff.
Safe consumption spaces with state supply, clean needles/pipes/works, etc can effectively act as onboarding for users to engage with further services and progress along their journey to reintegration into society.
Get people into those spaces. Get them into supported housing.
Become their drug supplier, so they are no longer engaging in criminality or at risk of contaminated supply.
Don't make "being sober" a requirement for progression.
Aim to get them into "own door" independent housing with engagement with social services.
Help them find paid jobs and start supporting themselves, reintegrating into society.
Offer rehab/treatment, suboxone, etc.
Basically, TL;DR - offer them dignity and agency, and you will see far greater success.
End rant.
It isn't even less money, we passed that mark a long time ago. The average junkie in Seattle costs King County around $100k/year (w/o making any progress on their addiction), while we can put them in prison for around half that. This isn't about saving money anymore, its about throwing money into a bottomless pit and seeing nothing improving at all.