The Issue of Homelessness

[Dio]

Around the web, I keep seeing news articles about cities outlawing outdoor sleeping, sleeping in cars, and public camping. These articles prompted me to pose this question: What solution(s) would you propose to solve the homelessness issue?

My personal opinion, based upon research I have conducted, is that leaving individuals homeless inevitably costs everyone additional money in one form or another. Furthermore, incarceration of these individuals costs even more money on average than homelessness, and the process leaves the individual with a criminal record. I believe that the ultimate solution lies in the direction of providing "Housing First" social programs. The benefit of these programs lies in the fact that they remove this population from an enviroment wrought with perils while providing the opportunity to receive any additional services on a consistent basis. Ultimately, these programs would alleviate the financial burden of providing law enforcement, emergency medical care, and temporary housing services to this population. In the long term, this service might even allow some of the individuals to maintain employment and regular housing while providing services to the severely ill members of our society. Therefore, these programs indirectly save all members of a society money while preventing the mistreatment of subsections in a population.

[Unorthodox]

Feed the homeless to the hungry. 

[Buster's Uncle]

I believe most people who stay in the situation for long choose to be homeless.  Perhaps that's the problem that needs solving.

[Dio]

Feed the homeless to the hungry. 

I believe most people who stay in the situation for long choose to be homeless.  Perhaps that's the problem that needs solving.

What about individuals that lack adequate social support networks? What about individuals with conditions that preclude signficant and consistent work? What about individuals with insufficent economic resources to afford the costs of regular housing? What about the rising cost of housing in many metro areas and lack of economic opportunties in rural areas? Why should a society punish those individuals that could not, due to an uncontrollable circumstance, signficantly contribute to society?
A pertinent example of the "Housing First" model exists in Salt Lake City, Utah. This program has reduced by approximately 70% the annual homeless rate in Utah. It would appear an effective and cost efficent manner through which to help eliminate an issue that plagues many areas.

[Rusty Edge]

My impressions-

1) It became more of an issue when Reagan opened the mental hospitals. There isn't enough mental health treatment available, voluntary or involuntary. It's a feminine canine to talk my psychotic cousin into committing himself when the serpents are coming out of his ear and the bacteria are swarming all over him, and he's running naked for his life. Solve that and we'll reduce our shooting problem, too.

2) War on Drugs is a failed approach.

3) JOBS! There need to be more available .

Deal with that stuff, and the problem will be cut down to size where programs can house or shelter people that pass drug tests.

[Dio]

My impressions-

1) It became more of an issue when Reagan opened the mental hospitals. There isn't enough mental health treatment available, voluntary or involuntary. It's a feminine canine to talk my psychotic cousin into committing himself when the serpents are coming out of his ear and the bacteria are swarming all over him, and he's running naked for his life. Solve that and we'll reduce our shooting problem, too.

2) War on Drugs is a failed approach.

3) JOBS! There need to be more available .

Deal with that stuff, and the problem will be cut down to size where programs can house or shelter people that pass drug tests.

I can understand this position quite well. The problem with many jobs is that the wage does not pay sufficently for housing. In addition, many renters now require credit checks which often show any prior eviction events. This unfortunate circumstance of renting often precludes any individual with poor credit from having potential landlords consider their applications.

[Rusty Edge]

Well I guess I overlooked the financial collapse as the result of that double dumb-buttocked scheme that convinced people to own a home with "no money down" because there homeless before that nonsense. That had to have crushed whatever support services were available.



I remember in the 80s while living in Appalachia my cousin (I have dozens of first cousins, they have various associated stories ) and her new husband came to visit from New England. He asked what would happen if a homeless person turned up.

We explained that he would be put in touch with one of the pastors, who would know which people of combination of people could temporarily provide them with a meal, a bed, and work. It would likely be farm work, or something similarly strenuous, such as logging/cutting firewood, depending on the time of year.  If they declined we would offer them a ride out of the valley.

"So you would help them out, or you would help them out.?"
"Exactly."

[Dio]

The argument raised is simply the cry of not in my backyard/neighborhood. What type of long term solution would simply moving an individual from one neighborhood to another accomplish? It is simply passing on the problem to another group without addressing the underlying issues. I would also like to remind many individuals that religious organizations tend to have ulterior agendas that drive the desire to help the poor.

[Unorthodox]

A pertinent example of the "Housing First" model exists in Salt Lake City, Utah. This program has reduced by approximately 70% the annual homeless rate in Utah. It would appear an effective and cost efficent manner through which to help eliminate an issue that plagues many areas.

*sigh*

Propoganda and lies. 

Utah's housing first initiative targets a very specific portion of the overall homeless population.  4%, specifically. 

OF THAT 4%, since 2005, that target population has dropped 70% (but is back on the rise), however there are overlapping programs that address this 4%, so to claim it's all due to housing first is just bad statistics. 

I can link you to the 2014 Utah Homelessness report that goes over this tomorrow if you REALLY want. 

[Dio]

The government defines an individual as homeless through the following passage from the 1987 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act: "An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; [or] (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is- (A) a supervised or publicly operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings."

[Dio]

A pertinent example of the "Housing First" model exists in Salt Lake City, Utah. This program has reduced by approximately 70% the annual homeless rate in Utah. It would appear an effective and cost efficent manner through which to help eliminate an issue that plagues many areas.

*sigh*

Propoganda and lies. 

Utah's housing first initiative targets a very specific portion of the overall homeless population.  4%, specifically. 

OF THAT 4%, since 2005, that target population has dropped 70% (but is back on the rise), however there are overlapping programs that address this 4%, so to claim it's all due to housing first is just bad statistics. 

I can link you to the 2014 Utah Homelessness report that goes over this tomorrow if you REALLY want.

The three primary sub groups within the homeless population are transient, periodic, and chronic. "Housing First" programs tend to target individuals within the chronically homeless population.

[Rusty Edge]

Not to be argumentative. I just tried to participate in this thread to be casually sociable, in hopes that eventually somebody else would come along and give you the interaction you're looking for. I didn't intend to offend anybody.

The argument raised is simply the cry of not in my backyard/neighborhood.

It wasn't an argument as to how things should be, it was just an anecdote as to how things once worked. Just as my initial response was qualified with the words "My impressions"

What type of long term solution would simply moving an individual from one neighborhood to another accomplish?

Perhaps you never lived in Appalachia. Communities at that time and place functioned on volunteers. One paid guy in my hometown to run the backhoe and shovel by hand to fix the streets, remove the snow, and keep the water system operational. Everything else was done with volunteers- emergency services, continuing education, community outreach. No local police, have to call the State Police and wait.  School District is a better term than neighborhood. At that time there were no drug rehab or psychological services, so staying there was no long term solution for anybody with such needs.

 

It is simply passing on the problem to another group without addressing the underlying issues.

Sometimes. But if you can't help somebody, aren't you helping them by getting them to  somebody who can, or at least 25 miles closer to somebody who can?

I would also like to remind many individuals that religious organizations tend to have ulterior agendas that drive the desire to help the poor.

 Sure they do. They want converts. But not always.

( ANOTHER ANECDOTE from another state ) My church and some other churches coordinated efforts to sponsor a few related families of African refugees. I should point out that they were all displaced Muslims, and we were explicitly not trying to convert them, all educational assistance was done in their homes, but it also included financial support, driving them around to the doctor, to gov offices, to work every day, to get groceries, etc.  It was a lot of trouble for a lot of people.

But what of Bible-reading religious individuals? I've known them to take the word of God pretty seriously and they sometimes help the poor, the hungry and the sick, etc out of a sense of duty.
As for preaching to them, sometimes that shows that they really care about them, not just want to pay them or feed them and get rid of them.

[Geo]

"So you would help them out, or you would help them out.?"
"Exactly."

Reminds me of that scene in the first Rambo movie where the sheriff rides Stallone over the bridge.

The government defines an individual as homeless through the following passage from the 1987 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act: "An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; [or] (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is- (A) a supervised or publicly operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings."

This seem to cover tourists as well? By this definition they appear to be homeless?

[Unorthodox]

The three primary sub groups within the homeless population are transient, periodic, and chronic. "Housing First" programs tend to target individuals within the chronically homeless population.

And you're missing the point.  The numbers that keep getting bantied about in Utah for the housing first program is SPECIFICALLY, ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE SOUGHT ASSISTANCE.  2014, that number was 539, with an estimated 14000 chronically homeless on the street that never sought out any support and thus go unaccounted for in the tracking of the "homeless population". 

So, of the CHRONICALLY HOMELESS in 2005, 1900 sought assistance and were placed in permanant housing.  THat number is down to 539 in 2014 (up from 400 in 2013).  Yay, it must be working right? 

However, when you look at the destinations of those placed in these homes, only 20% end up moving on to purchasing their own residence.  17% end up in a mental institute.  16% wind up dead or missing.  30% stay in the free housing more than 2 years, and 12% end up back on the street. 

Have you REALLY solved the homeless problem just by declaring that their free house makes them no longer homeless?  Is not the goal to get them into that 20% moving on to providing their own housing?  Or are we just making numbers look good?

Meanwhile, transitional homelessness in Utah has risen 70%, and projections are more dire as each year the amount of affordable housing being created falls 35% short of the amount of NEEDED affordable housing. 

[Rusty Edge]

"So you would help them out, or you would help them out.?"
"Exactly."

Reminds me of that scene in the first Rambo movie where the sheriff rides Stallone over the bridge.

I have no clue.

I saw the trailer for Rambo. It appeared to be about a body builder clobbering  the Russians with dynamite arrows in Viet Nam. It was too ridiculous to pay to see, or even watch on TV for free, so I never saw it, or the sequels.

Kinda like the TV show Bay Watch, which was apparently about life guards and boob jobs in California. Who watches this stuff?  Apparently the whole world, and it's been referential ever since as if they were some kind of classics, and not just another attempt at a fast buck.

Sometimes I shake my head at the whole world, and sometimes I think it must be like the French awarding The Legion of Honor to Jerry Lewis, they did it just to mess with our minds, because they're French.