Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama
So what? Better that than being on the street. Are you saying that everyone who can't get by independently has to be locked up in an austere clinical setting?
What's wrong with a middle path, where marginal people get enough help where they can semi-independently in a dorm like setting and have some kind of basic job. Or is that too good for them? Should someone who is suffering from clinical depression or bipolar disorder now be terrified to seek help because they'll get marked a crazy and lose their freedom?
This can't be a one sized fits all situation.
I never believed this. You are creating two groups - crazy bums and normal people. In reality I imagine its a spectrum where people with a wide range of issues may run the risk of becoming homeless based on certain circumstances.
A middle class apartment complex will evict someone if they become a nuisance, have suspicious friends over and do drugs, fall behind on rent, etc. At the same time these people can survive in trailers or slum housing where there are fewer rules or limits on roommates, etc.Homeless doesn't necessarily mean living on the street, it can mean couch surfing or having unstable living situation. That's harder to do in expensive places. Some of these people can scrape money together to live on their own in a cheap place, but not in an expensive place.
Another issue I see is that it makes it impossible to get back on your feet without moving. In order to afford rent in Los Angeles, you would have basically take someone off the streets and send them to earn a master's degree and become a software engineer making 100k a year. That's just silly. In a city like Houston you could rehabilitate someone to a point where they got a job as a construction worker and they could move in with a roommate and be on their own.
|
Man, I was just writing a really long response to your post and managed to lose the whole thing. I probably don't have it in me to try to re-write it. Briefly though, I got a Masters in Social Work at USC in the mid 1980s and worked with the chronic mentally ill outpatient population in LA and in the DC metro for the next 8 years. My information is dated, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the complexities involved. Up until around 1985, due to generous federal grants, most states (and especially California) had significant outpatient mental health services and a wide variety of housing options available to treat the chronic mentally ill population following court ordered de-institutionalization. These programs started in the early 1970s when the hospitals started to empty out. The belief was that a medication compliant mentally ill population could get the services it needed in the community. Almost immediately there was a very visible increase in the number of homeless people on the streets of major US cities. Why? The simplest answer is that these people were not medication compliant and drifted away from the system in ever increasing numbers. After the federal government cut funding in the Reagan years, the problem became much worse. Local outpatient services deteriorated or disappeared. Patients who were not medication compliant or otherwise unable/unwilling to abide by the rules of independent or semi-independent living facilities pretty much were left to fend for themselves.
I did my Masters writing project on one such person, a woman named Ruby who lived in the bus shelter on West Third St. and South Kingsley in front of the 7/11 store on the near westside of LA. Ruby was determined to stay on the streets, and she only left her shelter every now and then for what she described as a "rest cure". She would check herself into or be taken by police to emergency psych services at County General Hospital where she would get 10 days or so in-patient care. This went on for years. She was still living in her bus shelter talking all night to the people in the advertising posters on the shelter wall when I moved to DC in the late 80s. I went to work in DC (suburban Maryland) in an outpatient clinical facility. Funding was cut with each new budget. More and more of our clients began to have dicey housing arrangements, and keep in mind our clients were at least somewhat compliant with medication and treatment. Many disappeared into a life of self medication and crack cocaine addiction. Meanwhile, the visible homeless population continued to grow and grow. The population I am describing is just one component of the homeless population, but it is a major component. I reluctantly have come to the conclusion that mandatory medication compliance, regular clinical care, and supervised housing of some sort are the only realistic solutions for this group of homeless. All that costs a ton of money, so I don't see it happening. If you can find a hotel or motel that is willing to provide housing for these folks in the interim, more power to you and to the housing providers as well.
The drug addicted homeless population is probably divided between the psychotic and near psychotic self medication group and another large cohort of mostly younger (but not all young by any means) hard core drug users. Some of them have been addicted since their teen years. Others came back from the military in pretty bad shape and took to life on the streets. Employment is usually not part of their repertpoire. Scoring the next hit of crack or a syringe full of heroin, coke, or meth is their priority. This crowd loves a good motel room, but they won't put it to good use. My knowledge of this population stems from my participation in a 12 step program (I am not allowed to say which one but it involves drugs) where I have met dozens of young and not so young people who are trying to get clean and, in many instances, get off the streets. If they are genuinely motivated, there is a reasonable chance that they might succeed, but timing is everything with this endeavor because the rate of failure is very, very high. How does it usually end? Well, in the rooms where I hang out once or twice a week, the word is that it ends in "jails, institutions, and death". I believe that to be true for the most part. Community or government funding for drug treatment programs and half way or 3/4 housing would be very useful, but most of the problem will remain unless drugs disappear or law enforcement really comes down hard on this group with sentencing options that include mandatory treatment and ongoing drug testing.
There are some good programs in Austin for homeless individuals and families who are willing and able to work with they systems that are in place. Foundation Communities is one program that has provided housing for various different types of homeless individuals and families, including large numbers of medication/treatment compliant mentally ill. Still, what Foundation and other programs can offer is a drop in the bucket. The overall problem of homelessness is so multi-faceted. Affordable housing is certainly an issue, but it is NOT the root cause of homelessness in Austin or in most cities. The causes are much more systemic and complex. There is no one solution.
My fear here in Austin is that that we are quickly going to become known nationwide as a all-weather mecca for homeless living. If you can stand the summer heat, Austin is certainly more congenial in the wintertime than places like Portland, Seattle, or Olympia. If we do end up with several thousand homeless living all over town in tents and encampments, there is likely to be some very unpleasant political fallout. Austin is liberal, but it's not that liberal.
Prev
Linear Mode
