Quote:
Originally Posted by rofina
There is a lot of nuance in what "homeless" is;
1. Mental Health: Childhood trauma. Residential school trauma. Sex abuse. Schizophrenia, dementia, etc.
2. Criminal: Hustlers, pimps, drug dealers. Often users themselves. Profit off the situation and take advantage of chaos.
3. Economic: Working, cant afford a roof, perhaps some underlying stability issues, generally in need of assistance. Perhaps older, unemployable due to changing times, etc.
|
There is a lot of nuance, so abandoning housing first because it may not serve the first two groups as well as the last would be ill-advised.
If people have only been adversely affected by economic conditions and have no mental health concerns, housing first with little or no strings attached and few external supports will work. This is the cheapest option when you compare it to incarceration, homeless shelters, or housing with mental health supports.
For people with mental health issues, housing with integrated mental health supports is the best option.
Finally, the criminals should be put in prison.
However, the biggest challenge is not funding these solutions or hiring mental health support workers or finding suitable locations for facilities. The biggest challenge is figuring out which category each individual belongs in. Did someone impacted by economic conditions (group 3) commit petty theft because they were desperate, and should therefore be treated as a member of group 2? Does a chronic violent offender (group 2) only act out because of past trauma and should instead be addressed as a member of group 1? How do we decide if someone with mental health challenges has crossed a line and should be treated as a criminal?
It is a lot easier to say that anyone who commits a crime belongs in prison regardless or circumstance, while anyone else who is down on their luck should use homeless shelters and soup kitchens and try to pull themselves back up by their bootstraps.
Quote:
|
...our crisis is not the same as the one in Virginia...
|
- Many homeless people move to coastal cities from elsewhere because the weather is more conducive to sleeping on a sidewalk
- Some coastal cities have a more accepting political environment for the homeless or addicted
- The wages paid to unskilled workers do not come close to the cost of living in coastal cities
- People without jobs or with strained familial relationships are more likely to relocate, and many of the most attractive cities are on the coast
So while Vancouver or San Francisco's homeless and addition crises may not be caused by layoffs in oil fields or steel mills in close proximity to those cities, many people affected by hard economic circumstances in fly-over states (provinces) have moved to those cities for one reason or another. And those cities also have their own unique economic situations (as discussed on this forum) that may be pushing low-wage workers out of their homes.
Anyways, my point about coal or steel or oil towns that are struggling is that mental health and economic circumstances are related, and we cannot pretend that someone who lost their job is not more likely to fall into a cycle of poverty, addition, and homelessness than someone with steady employment.
Threaded Mode