Trump wants to evict homeless from Washington

ThatRobGuy said:

Housing First

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed to preventing and ending homelessness in the United States.

endhomelessness.org

What Housing First Really Means

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed to preventing and ending homelessness in the United States.

endhomelessness.org

Pathways Housing First

We start by housing people directly from the streets, without precondition.

www.pathwayshousingfirst.org

Housing First is built on two core principles:

1. Immediate access to permanent housing without requiring preconditions like sobriety, mental health treatment, or employment.
2. Consumer choice and self-determination, meaning that once housed, individuals can decide when or whether to engage in treatment programs for substance use, mental health, or other issues.

Click to expand...

Yeah, now you're kinda mixing one thing detail which was what bothered me in what you wrote. You're literal words were "just allocate funds to give people free apartments forever and wait". Housing First encourages people to seek help, but it won't force them to until they're ready. Heck, the whole idea is that Housing First offers all sorts of help as well and forcing people in isn't going to work. And quite frankly, the system is way better than what US currently. People can't deal with their problems in general while homeless. Seeking a job is pretty hard with no permanent address, as is seeking help for any possible addictions they might have. And not all of them do either. And they start paying into the housing as well, so they don't end up staying for free either.

BCP1928 said:

What are you going to do with those who have a job? Are they going to be hauled off as well?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to do anything with anybody.

7thKeeper said:

You're literal words were "just allocate funds to give people free apartments forever and wait". Housing First encourages people to seek help, but it won't force them to until they're ready.

Click to expand...

....but that's what the model is.

If it's aim is to provide them permanent housing, but no requirement to address underlying issues, then that's how the model will shake out in the real world. I base on that on some data we have about both drug addiction and mental illness.

Among people with substance disorders, only about 12% ever get treatment:
(and even among that small percentage, only 1/3 went voluntarily on their own, the rest were due to families checking them in, or court orders)


And among that large percentage that never get treatment, 95% reported not perceiving a need.


It's a similar story with people who have certain mental illnesses as well.


We also have to keep in mind, the vast majority of people with severe mental illness and addiction are not homeless, and voluntary treatment refusal is the largest subset of the "treatment gap".


So what evidence is there that the unhoused population will perform better than the housed general population with those same issues?

For instance, take someone like my cousin...

They've been waiting around for quite some time for him to make that decision, fast-forward 12 years, he's 37 (and I guess what you could technically call a functional addict) and still lives with my aunt and uncle and what money he does make, goes to feed the addiction for the most part because they're covering the normal "adulting" expenses of things like housing, utilities, and food.

How would these situations shake out any differently?

ThatRobGuy said:

Regardless of how sarcastic your previous post was meant to be, it was still closer to being a feasible long-term solution than what some homeless advocacy orgs recommend. (which is "Let's just allocate funds to give people free apartments forever and wait for them to make the decision to get treatment")

Click to expand...

I dunno, this sounds an awful lot like Mao's deurbanization initiatives. Not sure that this is a model we should follow.

ThatRobGuy said:

Housing First

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed to preventing and ending homelessness in the United States.

endhomelessness.org

What Housing First Really Means

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed to preventing and ending homelessness in the United States.

endhomelessness.org

Pathways Housing First

We start by housing people directly from the streets, without precondition.

www.pathwayshousingfirst.org

Housing First is built on two core principles:

1. Immediate access to permanent housing without requiring preconditions like sobriety, mental health treatment, or employment.
2. Consumer choice and self-determination, meaning that once housed, individuals can decide when or whether to engage in treatment programs for substance use, mental health, or other issues.

Click to expand...

From one of your links:

He was echoed later in the conference by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson who stated that “the evidence then and now supports Housing First.”

Hans Blaster said:

From one of your links:

He was echoed later in the conference by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Ben Carson who stated that “the evidence then and now supports Housing First.”

Click to expand...

For certain metrics, I think that goes without saying...

But the question is one of long-term economic sustainability and countervailing interests.

For instance, if my brother was homeless, he'd certainly have an improvement across a variety of metrics if I pay $1400/month to put him up in an apartment vs. living on the streets

...but is the improvement worth the trade-off, and how long could I afford to do that for?


For example, Seattle's "King County Health health through housing" initiative is one that's often touted as evidence of success
- 28% reduction in substance use severity
- 40% fewer interactions with police
- 35% reduction in Emergency room visits

But it came at the price tag of $33k per person annually.

So if we were to expand that model to the 700k homeless in the US, we're in the ballpark of about $23 billion. While that's not a budget line item that's as daunting as our other ones like Medicaid/SS/and Defense spending, it's certainly nothing to sneeze at either.


And those efforts haven't been without their criticisms. Seattle's other project (the 1811) had some results that were, shall we say, less than spectacular.

University of Washington researchers found that residents of 1811 reduced their drinking, although the amounts they were drinking were still startling. The median number of drinks dropped from 15.7 per day before moving in, to 10.6 drinks a day after a year in housing.

And it hasn't been without other challenges:

Of course we could begin by realizing that homeless people are individuals, with different reasons for being homeless, different personal problems and different capacities for self improvement.
The other thing we must do is stop treating homelessness as a moral issue. Then maybe we can entertain practical solutions.

DaisyDay said:

I dunno, this sounds an awful lot like Mao's deurbanization initiatives. Not sure that this is a model we should follow.

Click to expand...

I think that endeavor was more aimed at getting the "pro-bourgeois" educated youth out of the major city centers (and out of his way) to prevent them from organizing against him by keeping them geographically dispersed.

I think the "it'll help ease labor shortages if they help with farming" was just a cover story in that particular instance.

Now, if Trump was suggesting that we ship all the Harvard and Columbia university students out to the farms to work, then that would be a stunning parallel to what Mao was doing.

ThatRobGuy said:

I think that endeavor was more aimed at getting the "pro-bourgeois" educated youth out of the major city centers (and out of his way) to prevent them from organizing against him by keeping them geographically dispersed.

I think the "it'll help ease labor shortages if they help with farming" was just a cover story in that particular instance.

Now, if Trump was suggesting that we ship all the Harvard and Columbia university students out to the farms to work, then that would be a stunning parallel to what Mao was doing.

Click to expand...

Right. What you seem to be suggesting is more lie a workhouse, or poorhouse.

BCP1928 said:

Of course we could begin by realizing that homeless people are individuals, with different reasons for being homeless, different personal problems and different capacities for self improvement.

Click to expand...

That's true, but I think having a realistic conversation surrounding the stats/data pertaining to the particular types of issues they have, is paramount.

While everyone is an individual, certain traits and issues are by no means a "jump ball - could go either way" and are much more predictable than people are acknowledging.

I noted the stats on substance abuse earlier:

Of people who abuse substances in the US:
- only 12% ever get into any sort of treatment (and of that 12%, only one third will do it voluntarily, the rest comes from entering those programs involuntarily, either because a family member checked them in, or a judge ordered it)

- of the remaining 88% who never get treatment, only 5% of that cohort cites the "social stigma" as being the reason they don't want to enter a treatment program, the other 95% simply don't perceive a need and don't feel that they have a problem.


So as individualistic as everyone is, and despite the fact that we all have a vast array of differences across a variety of categories, when it comes to substance abuse, the reality is, we know the overwhelming majority will refuse treatment due to denial that they have a problem (or denial about the degree to which they've let that behavior get way from them)

BCP1928 said:

The other thing we must do is stop treating homelessness as a moral issue. Then maybe we can entertain practical solutions.

Click to expand...

I don't see how people can separate the two. When talking about people sleeping under newspaper in the freezing cold, I think one would have to look at it through a moral lens, because obviously is a sad sight and there's going to be a measure of guilt there. The question is to what degree we intervene, and for how long do we intervene if no meaningful improvement is being made.

I mentioned a hypothetical earlier of if my sibling was homeless and strung out. I would feel a moral obligation to make sure they weren't sleeping on the streets (at least initially), but how long would that last if they weren't making any effort to correct the issue, and refusing to get the actual kinds of help they need apart from just accepting the money to cover rent.


You mentioned a practical solution, I'll circle back to what I mentioned at the outset, which is the Japanese system.

They take parts of the housing-first concept, but then blend it with the concept that people do need to be active participants in their own improvement (especially if they're leaning on the rest of society's willingness to help them)

Their system acknowledges the fact that if a person is living on the street, surrounded by dangerous elements, no access to meds, no access to showers, etc... They've got pretty zero chance of turning the corner. So you do need to address that part first. But they also acknowledge that a zero-accountability model isn't a feasible long-term solution.

In essence, "we'll get a roof over your head and somewhere to get cleaned up first, but after that, if you want the continued support, you're going to have to let us help you get your substance issues straightened out, your meds situation squared away, and let us help you find some gainful employment if at all possible."

ThatRobGuy said:

Now, if Trump was suggesting that we ship all the Harvard and Columbia university students out to the farms to work, then that would be a stunning parallel to what Mao was doing.

Click to expand...

If he thought he could get away with it.....

ThatRobGuy said:

That's true, but I think having a realistic conversation surrounding the stats/data pertaining to the particular types of issues they have, is paramount.

While everyone is an individual, certain traits and issues are by no means a "jump ball - could go either way" and are much more predictable than people are acknowledging.

I noted the stats on substance abuse earlier:

Of people who abuse substances in the US:
- only 12% ever get into any sort of treatment (and of that 12%, only one third will do it voluntarily, the rest comes from entering those programs involuntarily, either because a family member checked them in, or a judge ordered it)

- of the remaining 88% who never get treatment, only 5% of that cohort cites the "social stigma" as being the reason they don't want to enter a treatment program, the other 95% simply don't perceive a need and don't feel that they have a problem.


So as individualistic as everyone is, and despite the fact that we all have a vast array of differences across a variety of categories, when it comes to substance abuse, the reality is, we know the overwhelming majority will refuse treatment due to denial that they have a problem (or denial about the degree to which they've let that behavior get way from them)



I don't see how people can separate the two. When talking about people sleeping under newspaper in the freezing cold, I think one would have to look at it through a moral lens, because obviously is a sad sight and there's going to be a measure of guilt there. The question is to what degree we intervene, and for how long do we intervene if no meaningful improvement is being made.

I mentioned a hypothetical earlier of if my sibling was homeless and strung out. I would feel a moral obligation to make sure they weren't sleeping on the streets (at least initially), but how long would that last if they weren't making any effort to correct the issue, and refusing to get the actual kinds of help they need apart from just accepting the money to cover rent.


You mentioned a practical solution, I'll circle back to what I mentioned at the outset, which is the Japanese system.

They take parts of the housing-first concept, but then blend it with the concept that people do need to be active participants in their own improvement (especially if they're leaning on the rest of society's willingness to help them)

Their system acknowledges the fact that if a person is living on the street, surrounded by dangerous elements, no access to meds, no access to showers, etc... They've got pretty zero chance of turning the corner. So you do need to address that part first. But they also acknowledge that a zero-accountability model isn't a feasible long-term solution.

In essence, "we'll get a roof over your head and somewhere to get cleaned up first, but after that, if you want the continued support, you're going to have to let us help you get your substance issues straightened out, your meds situation squared away, and let us help you find some gainful employment if at all possible."

Click to expand...

No, I was talking about the traditional perception that the plight of the poor stems from a moral failing on their part.

Numerous California cities prohibit homelessness, including Long Beach, Palm Springs, and Indio.

...But it's only wrong when Trump has something to do with it.

Landon Caeli said:

Numerous California cities prohibit homelessness, including Long Beach, Palm Springs, and Indio.

...But it's only wrong when Trump has something to do with it.

Click to expand...

Certain cities in California sort of got themselves into a bit of a mess with that (with some similarities to how some of the Northern Sanctuary cities got a bit of an eye opener)


Factoid:
Between 2014 and 2019, the number of unsheltered homeless people in California increased by about 37,000. Despite billions in spending, homelessness continued to rise, exceeding 181,000 people by 2024.


San Fran and Portland both had similar issues. They created very permissive and tolerant policies toward open-air drug use, they even went so far as to distribute drug-use supplies like needles, pipes, and foil directly to users in public areas with minimal intervention or requirements for treatment.

That made places like San Fran and Portland "destinations" for people who wanted that sort of environment, and that correlated to an increase in the homeless population because, when someone moves to an expensive city, purely for the drug culture/scene (with no other real plans or prospects), it doesn't exactly take Nostradamus to predict where a lot of those people are going to end up.

LA Times did a piece highlighting how, last year, half of San Fran's drug addicts (both sheltered and unsheltered) were recent transplants from other cities and states)


In both instances (San Fran and Portland), that spilled over into adjacent townships and cities, and created some real tension. (up to and including lawsuits, and demands that the Governor intervene)


Which makes complete sense. No city exists in a vacuum. If the neighboring city passed an ordinance that says "we're not going to enforce drunk driving laws, we think they're cruel", and the end result is a bunch of drunks from their city driving through my city and getting into accidents and running into people at crosswalks...there are going to be some words to be had.


But all that being said, those cities aren't necessarily representative of what causes homelessness...they're just an example of the kinds of policies that make it worse.

The closest major city to me (Cleveland) has, in any given year, 4000-5000 homeless people, and Cleveland certainly isn't allowing open-air drug use or handing out free crackpipes to people.


Ultimately, I think the solution selectively picks the elements of the housing-first methodology that make sense, and ditch the parts that don't.

Getting someone off the streets, and under a safe roof with a shower and a bed and some food, because there's literally zero chance they'll succeed sleeping under newspapers, makes perfect sense. Nobody's going to hire someone in that condition.

However, the element of "we can't have any conditions placed on it, and we have to give them 100% agency in the decisions of whether or not to accept counseling and treatment" is an element that doesn't make sense and needs to be removed from the equation.

Let's just be blunt:
If it's a person with a severe mental illness and currently unmedicated, they're in no position to make those kinds of decisions until they can be seen by a professional and get the correct meds and get levelled out.

If it's a person in the grips of a serious substance issue, to be quite frank, their "100% agency" doesn't have a great track record in terms of outcomes... they need a captain steering the ship (at least for a period of time). I know there are some select outliers who were put on painkillers by a doctor who misled them, and then cut them off cold turkey, but that's certainly not the majority of people in the unhoused situation due to drug problems.

ThatRobGuy said:

For certain metrics, I think that goes without saying...

But the question is one of long-term economic sustainability and countervailing interests.

For instance, if my brother was homeless, he'd certainly have an improvement across a variety of metrics if I pay $1400/month to put him up in an apartment vs. living on the streets

...but is the improvement worth the trade-off, and how long could I afford to do that for?


For example, Seattle's "King County Health health through housing" initiative is one that's often touted as evidence of success
- 28% reduction in substance use severity
- 40% fewer interactions with police
- 35% reduction in Emergency room visits

But it came at the price tag of $33k per person annually.

So if we were to expand that model to the 700k homeless in the US, we're in the ballpark of about $23 billion. While that's not a budget line item that's as daunting as our other ones like Medicaid/SS/and Defense spending, it's certainly nothing to sneeze at either.


And those efforts haven't been without their criticisms. Seattle's other project (the 1811) had some results that were, shall we say, less than spectacular.

University of Washington researchers found that residents of 1811 reduced their drinking, although the amounts they were drinking were still startling. The median number of drinks dropped from 15.7 per day before moving in, to 10.6 drinks a day after a year in housing.

And it hasn't been without other challenges:

Alcoholics' apartments generate many aid calls | The Seattle Times

Click to expand...

Sigh. This is a lot of the old thinking about homeless people in terms of moral insufficiency. I don't think that is useful.

Landon Caeli said:

Numerous California cities prohibit homelessness, including Long Beach, Palm Springs, and Indio.

...But it's only wrong when Trump has something to do with it.

Click to expand...

If it is a city thing then city officials should make policy and face the city press. Trump brought this attention on himself by messing around in city policy.

Hans Blaster said:

Sigh. This is a lot of the old thinking about homeless people in terms of moral insufficiency. I don't think that is useful.

Click to expand...

It's not moral insufficiency, it's self-control insufficiency in some cases, and medication insufficiency in other cases.

In both cases, they don't know what they're doing because they're impaired.


If that's the "old thinking", then what is the "new thinking"?

We have the numbers, when you provide free housing, no-strings-attached, and just trust addicts with deciding when the time is right for them to get help and break free of the addiction, after a full year, it only leads to a 28% reduction in substance use severity.

That's a high price tag to pay for "In one year from today, I'll only have 10 drinks a day instead of 15" or "I'll only do cocaine 14 times a week instead of 20".

When you consider that after the reduction, it's still at an amount that's prohibitive to a person becoming self-sufficient, then I'd say the juice isn't worth the squeeze when there are better models available.

I said it twice, I'll say it again... The Japanese model (Housing-first, but with conditions). Numbers don't lie.

Even when compared to the states that have employed the modern progressive housing-first model

Even compared against countries that have very generous safety nets to go with their "no strings attached housing-first model"


Japan has excelled in this regard.

ThatRobGuy said:

It's not moral insufficiency, it's self-control insufficiency in some cases, and medication insufficiency in other cases.

In both cases, they don't know what they're doing because they're impaired.

Click to expand...

Which of those two categories do homeless people who have jobs fall into?

ThatRobGuy said:

It's not moral insufficiency, it's self-control insufficiency in some cases, and medication insufficiency in other cases.

Click to expand...

Since when is condemning people for their "self-control insufficiency" not a commentary on their moral sufficiency?

Hans Blaster said:

Since when is condemning people for their "self-control insufficiency" not a commentary on their moral sufficiency?

Click to expand...

Is there an issue with pointing out someone's self control problem that is destroying their life?