First developed in the US, the initiative known as Housing First, is being adopted increasingly in Europe. Unlike traditional approaches, it doesn’t require individuals to meet certain criteria before receiving housing assistance. The idea is that homeless individuals have a higher chance of creating a brighter future for themselves if they first have a roof over their heads.
Carlos Martínez Carrasco lived rough for several years before a Housing First initiative provided him with a flat on the outskirts of Madrid.
He told Real Economy that the flat has changed his life in every way: “I no longer lack the things that you do when you’re on the street and I can cook. I don’t have to find a way to wash clothes… I can go out with the peace of mind that I have a place to come back to. I am very happy today.”
My concern would be that individuals would abuse the provided homes and either trash them completely, or use them as a trap house. There’d have to be some kind of rules.
Edit: see below, people who have never spent time around homeless communities
it’s not as simple as just giving them all houses… there would have to be social workers involved… transition type helpers and different types of housing…
but, believe it or not, most homeless people aren’t hard drug users
But a lot of chronic hard drug users are homeless.
All I’m saying is I agree it’s not simple, and there would need to be a system in place to mitigate those complexities. These are the types of concerns that voters on these projects would have.
Do you think it is easier to adress drug abuse, when people on top of it lack a home and the basic safety and comfort it provides?
No, and I never claimed that was the case.
weird how you replied to the last sentence, but not the middle
And when residents refuse those services? When they simply want to take the free space and be allowed to continue whatever pattern in their life led to their current circumstances?
A lot of the times that wouldn’t be an issue- people using the resources available to uplift themselves(the majority, I’d argue) will stay for the time they need, and move on when they’re back on their feet.
It’s the ones who have no interest in getting back on their feet that would be the source of problems, and there has to be a way to deal with that.
The worst case scenario is that over time, each residence will eventually be filled by someone who takes it for granted and does not use the opportunity to improve. And all the while they’re there, there could be another individual that could use the same housing and actually progress their lives.
Seriously talk to anyone who actually works with the homeless or in social services, these are the pragmatic problems of public services.
you’re speaking from complete ignorance.
drug addiction in america is already a disability and you can get section-8 housing for it… it’s just a shitty little one bedroom apartment…
and people still use drugs in there. the major difference is: they’re not shooting up at the bus stop and sleeping there…
they also have access to safer things like methadone and people are able to reach out to them.
when it comes to “these whatever pattern led to this”, you’re using blame-the-victim language. most homeless people have mental health issues… other disabilities, or just fell on hard times.
but most if these problems can be helped, and these people are better able to help themselves when they’re not spending all their time looking for food.
consider how likely you are to “get a job” when you walk into a place with a backpack, dirty clothes, unwashed, and completely shellshocked from sleeping on the streets.
it can definitely be done, but that requires a lot of things that most homeless people simply don’t have…
if you meet these people’s basic, most minimum, lower level of maslow’s hierarchy, then they can begin to think about the other problems that led to their patterns in life.
if they’re content with some little apartment and minimal food and whatnot? then that’s not really a big deal… let them live
it’s not at all what you imagine. people aren’t out there because they’re lazy.
You know nothing about me or my life, but I’ll tell you this is the dumbest thing you’ve said so far.
I agree with what you’re saying and I’m telling you that these systems break down when they get taken advantage of without any kind of oversight- up to and including section 8 housing.
Most chronically homeless are though. Somewhere around 80% in the US. Although a lot of that is self medication for mental illness.
that is very incorrect…
p.s. most chronically homeless people don’t ever go to homeless shelters
It’s not, though.
it is, though
No, a large portion of the chronically homeless are addicts, those with severe mental illness, or both.
Please note the “chronically” part. I’m not talking about all homeless people.
No, there really don’t have to be. Even letting them trash the place is still better for society overall than any other strategy we’ve tried.
Let me be clear about that:
FYI, the subset of homeless people who would trash the place is relatively small to begin with. Contrary to the stereotypes, most homeless people really are decent people down on their luck, not assholes who want to wreck shit for the lolz.
When I say “still better” I don’t mean better for the assholes, I mean better for everybody else. Giving them housing and then letting them wreck it is actually cheaper than spending a bunch of money screening them out and then leaving them on the street to do crimes or whatever.
On one hand I agree with this idea, on the other hand, people who are chronically homeless-not just for a short period of time-typically have a reason. Addiction, mental illness, whatever have you.
On the second point, the building needs to be maintained. You can’t just let people destroy because it costs not only them, but anyone who comes after them trying to use the same resources.
I agree that housing the homeless is kind of the no brainer answer, but there is a very real, very damaging subset of homeless populations that will take extreme advantage of and ruin public services for everyone else.
I don’t have a good answer to that, but dumping public money into housing, giving it ti the homeless, then finding that it’s turned into a cesspool because of allowing any sort of behavior or treatment of the property isn’t gonna fly- definitely not with the public anyway
Yeah, and…?
It’s not worth the cost (in terms of social worker manpower etc.) to try to separate them out from the non-chronically homeless on the front end.
“Housing first” is not “housing only.” Getting them into housing makes them a lot easier to reach with addiction treatment or psychiatric help or whatever.
Regarding the rest of your comment, you seem to be under the impression that all these homeless people would be concentrated together in shitty housing projects, which isn’t really how it works anymore. In the 21st century, we’re talking about placing people into mixed-income housing, where all the neighbors paying market rate set a good example and the peer pressure is directed towards improvement instead of wallowing in poverty.
Yes it is. Homeless shelters, food banks, rehab clinics etc. all have minimums you have to meet to be there. Resources are limited and you can’t pour resources into someone who isn’t trying to utilize them to improve.
I agreed wholeheartedly with your second point.
Yeah I don’t think that’ll work out the way you’re thinking it will. Peer pressure only works if people care about their peers, and local residents won’t be super fond of free housing popping up next to the housing they paid for, affecting their property values.
That point makes my above remarks even more important.
There was a project in my town where the city build a bunch of cabins on an otherwise unused lot of public land close to but separate from the city.
It was mostly junkies who ended up there. Now, instead of sending cops, the city send social workers to check up on them. The point was to give them a safe place and get in contact with them so at least those who were willing could be sorted out.
The homeless people who weren’t junkies didn’t go there, because they disliked that whole thing and mostly wanted to be left alone.
So the city opened a hotel where anyone can check in for a night free of charge. There were two rules. No drugs and no questions asked. Again there are social workers available for anyone who do want to talk about why they checked in. It’s mostly homeless people and boozers who go there. They run a café too, so if the users wanted breakfast they could go there and that’s were the connection was really made. People talk over breakfast. The café is run mostly by ex-alcoholics, who themselves use it as a step out of the bad habits, but who can also get in touch with those who don’t want to talk to the social workers.
Anyway, I’m not sure if the success is measurable in any way but at least all the homeless and junkies are offered a roof when it rains and someone to talk to if they want. Leaving the problem on street solves absolutely nothing.
So junkies get a house, everyone else maybe gets a hotel room?
That doesn’t sound like success.
The cabins were just log cabins with no electricity or water. They had a shared port-a-potty outside. They seem to be gone now when I look at google maps.
The hotel still exists, and the rooms are singular beds and a table. I think our prison cells are better.
Anyway, the point is that there’s no reason not to offer a bare minimum for the homeless people, because it helps you help them help you getting them off the streets.
I will say that from what I’ve read your city sounds like they’ve struck a good balance and I’m glad there’s positive and effective programs out there
And this right here is the problem I’m trying to get the keyboard warriors in this thread to wrap their heads around.
In my city, all the people who are too problematic for the social housing get sent to this compound near the airport. So, they get to do their drunken shouting away from residential/commercial areas.
It’s kinda like a gated community with social workers and police on standby. Doesn’t work for every case but it seems perfect for a lot of the folks who end up there.
Yaknow that doesn’t sound like a terrible compromise
I’ve often thought of this too. I think I read that most homeless have underlying issues that aren’t financial (although with rent hikes…).
My initial thought would be dorm style apartments with varying levels of support at the building depending on the severity of issues.
That’s what’s rough about working with homeless populations. You want to save everyone, but sometimes trying to help one individual who doesn’t want help subtracts from helping the four that do.
I’m getting downvoted by people who haven’t had to work in and around shelters before I’m assuming, because it’s a very real issue and is the cause of a lot of the negative perception of homelessness.