Solution to chronic homeless

[Opti]

Interesting article that should be read IMO in its entirety so I'm just posting the link.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/meet-the-outsider-who-may-have-solved-chronic-homelessness/ar-BBjhDWI?ocid=iehp

[Jaguar]

Wow that is something.

[dondub]

We sure could use that here in Seattle. Due to our moderate climate we have plenty of homeless. I volunteer at NW Harvest foodbank and deal with them every week,. One guy has lived on the streets for 13 years. They are everywhere.

[happyhoix]

I've read another article on this same topic a while back that gave more details on the costs saved - there is a lot of money spent on medical services for people who live outside all the time, subject to temp extremes, lack of clean water and toilet facilities, etc. They wind up with chronic diseases and go to the ER frequently. Plus the police services to monitor the shanty towns - we have one of those down the street, where a bunch of people live up under a highway overpass, and every now and then the police come by and make everyone move on.

There are people who are just too damaged - from chronic drug use, or mental health issues, or both - to be employable. They are not going to earn enough to pay for their own apartment, and most likely they've burned all their bridges with their families/friends. I don't have a problem providing them with a bare bones place to live to keep them from living under overpasses, since I think that saves public money in the long run,  but this will not be popular with the bootstraps people who believe providing these people with a place to live will only encourage other people to go live under a bridge and declare themselves homeless, too, so they can live for free.

[EVT1]

May 11, 2015 11:20:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

There are people who are just too damaged - from chronic drug use, or mental health issues, or both - to be employable. They are not going to earn enough to pay for their own apartment, and most likely they've burned all their bridges with their families/friends. I don't have a problem providing them with a bare bones place to live to keep them from living under overpasses, since I think that saves public money in the long run,  but this will not be popular with the bootstraps people who believe providing these people with a place to live will only encourage other people to go live under a bridge and declare themselves homeless, too, so they can live for free.

In a lot of cases hard to tell which came first- drugs or mental issue.  This country isn't too fond of taking care of the mentally ill.
Hell, this country isn't too fond of taking care of anyone that can't pay.

Bootstraps people   99% of those had plenty of help they just don't acknowledge it.

[kittensaver]

May 11, 2015 12:07:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 11, 2015 11:20:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

There are people who are just too damaged - from chronic drug use, or mental health issues, or both - to be employable. They are not going to earn enough to pay for their own apartment, and most likely they've burned all their bridges with their families/friends. I don't have a problem providing them with a bare bones place to live to keep them from living under overpasses, since I think that saves public money in the long run,  but this will not be popular with the bootstraps people who believe providing these people with a place to live will only encourage other people to go live under a bridge and declare themselves homeless, too, so they can live for free.

In a lot of cases hard to tell which came first- drugs or mental issue.  This country isn't too fond of taking care of the mentally ill.
Hell, this country isn't too fond of taking care of anyone that can't pay.

Bootstraps people   99% of those had plenty of help they just don't acknowledge it.

  x 1,000.

[Deleted]

I wish the articles on this guy went into more detail about how they select where to place the homeless. Drug using single guy, you are in building A. Non-drug-using single mom of 3 you are in building X, far-far-away from the drug using population?

Very interesting concept. Having worked in NYC hospitals, there are some really nasty people around and I would not want drug using or crazy population in the same place as down & out homeless. I wonder if they take any of the down & out that just need a temporary assist, or if they figure they are not a big enough mess and can get themselves out of trouble.

With all the rukus about tent city locations we've had here, I also wonder how much issue the population surrounding the selected building makes? Can't be good for property values to be next door to a free housing building that welcomes addicts that continue to use. 

[happyhoix]

May 11, 2015 12:20:00 GMT -5 @rockit said:

I wish the articles on this guy went into more detail about how they select where to place the homeless. Drug using single guy, you are in building A. Non-drug-using single mom of 3 you are in building X, far-far-away from the drug using population?

Very interesting concept. Having worked in NYC hospitals, there are some really nasty people around and I would not want drug using or crazy population in the same place as down & out homeless. I wonder if they take any of the down & out that just need a temporary assist, or if they figure they are not a big enough mess and can get themselves out of trouble.

With all the rukus about tent city locations we've had here, I also wonder how much issue the population surrounding the selected building makes? Can't be good for property values to be next door to a free housing building that welcomes addicts that continue to use. 

I think the homeless mom with three kids would already have section 8 housing available to her. There is usually a safety net for moms with kids.

What I understood from the article is the are trying to do something about those chronically unemployable/drug addict and/or mental health problem people who have been living on the streets for years, not the more transient population of run away kids or people who are temporarily homeless due to job loss.

I would be interested to hear how long these people have been housed in the new housing, and if they avoided doing a lot of damage to them (since mentally unbalanced people are the ones who might be crapping on the floor or setting fires).

And yes I would think cities would have issues about where to locate this kind of housing. The little town I live in had a huge stink over locating a drug rehab facility in our county, even though we're near one of the meth producing capitals of the South. They finally were able to block them getting a permit completely. My guess is they might take abandoned facilities in run down parts of the town and rehab them into some plain jane studio apartments.

[Shooby]

Build a bunch of Welfare Dorms. If you want to be on Assistance, you can live in the Dorm. And, you can eat 3 squares a day in the Cafeteria. There will be a bus to take you to town to find a job. And, if you are unemployed, then you can help by working in the Cafeteria, taking care of the grounds, and doing other jobs around the complex. Sounds like a good plan.

[mroped]

May 11, 2015 15:24:43 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Build a bunch of Welfare Dorms. If you want to be on Assistance, you can live in the Dorm. And, you can eat 3 squares a day in the Cafeteria. There will be a bus to take you to town to find a job. And, if you are unemployed, then you can help by working in the Cafeteria, taking care of the grounds, and doing other jobs around the complex. Sounds like a good plan.

That is what it should be done, or at least something in that manner.
There will always be opposition to this sort of idea but it seems that it gained some traction in certain circles.
Now here is the weird part: this very model was used in communism. How about it?

[Shooby]

Well, if you want to be a ward of the State, then live like a Ward of the State. OR, get off your own arse and pay your own way through life. See how simple that is? lol

[mroped]

One would assume that if you are on hard times you could use some help.
If you refuse said help then maybe you have a mental problem in which case the state should be allowed to remove you from society and put you in a mental facility for your own good and for the safety of society.
However, we have that thing called Constitution and so many lawyers willing to take a shot at the state( under the cover of "protecting individual rights") that such thing would be near if not impossible.

[kittensaver]

May 11, 2015 16:49:58 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

May 11, 2015 12:14:13 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

  x 1,000.

This question is for EVT1 as well... 

How do you force help on people that don't want it?  There are many homeless people that are so far down the rabbit hole of mental illness they aren't rational enough to want or see help. 

I think it's all well and good to point fingers at those big meanies... but those big meanies also support the idea that you can't force someone into treatment against their will. 

As someone who works day in and day out with this population, I can tell you there is an answer . . . but it is not what people expect, and folks with rigid ideas of how things "should" be will not like it. Like this guy in the OP, the concept is brilliantly simple.

What is the opposite of forced treatment?

Voluntary treatment!

How do you get someone to accept treatment voluntarily? You do it through outreach. You "meet people where they're at" - - on the streets, in shelters, in the SSA and DPSS office lines, under bridges, in encampments, in "places not meant for human habitation" (as HUD calls it). You take the time to build genuine, respectful, adult-to-adult relationships. You gain the trust of that person by being genuine and caring (and bringing along a blanket, a sack lunch and your business card). You help the person envision that there's a better life for them "out there." And you employ a lot of evidence-based practices such as Housing First, Critical Time Intervention, Harm Reduction, Motivational Interviewing (look them up!). Eventually, virtually every person you work with will be willing to hear about how treatment and services might make their lives better. For some people, it will take only one encounter. For some, it could be 1 or 2 years (or even longer) of patient, genuine, I-won't-give-up-on-you outreach until they feel comfortable enough to trust what you are saying.

Rigid people and folks with the "losers should be thrown into loser communes and eat crappy cafeteria food" attitudes hate this approach. It takes too much time - and besides, people "should" do what *I* think is best for them, right?

How many of us would settle for living in such conditions? Not many (if any). So why do *some* folks think this is acceptable living for persons with struggles, demons and disabilities?

There is a real, live, living, breathing, feeling human being under that filthy, obnoxious, drug-addled, paranoid exterior. Never forget that. They have the same human feelings and the same human needs as the rest of us. Never forget that.

<< kittensaver steps off her soapbox and puts on her flameproof suit >>

 

 

[Opti]

I do think more details would be interesting and enlightening.

[irishpad]

kittensaver, loved your post.   Back when I was in school, had a part-time placement at a place in Louisville where they were providing shelter with no strings attached (ex. rules about no drinking, curfews, etc), then offered to any who wanted it to have a someone that would work with them on anything they wanted (job training, education, drug rehab, counseling, etc.)   U of Louisville sociology department was involved in tracking to see how effective this approach would be.   I never did see the results.  The OP and what you talked about seem to be in the same vein.  

[zibazinski]

The abandoned schoolhouses might serve as housing. I've thought that for a very long time. All the rooms have at least a toilet and sink. Might not be that difficult to add a tub or a shower. A kitchenette even. There is, of course, a cafeteria. There's usually a gym. That could be a daycare. There's an office that can be used as phones, Internet, mail. But that would be for those who decide they want/need help.

[EVT1]

May 11, 2015 16:49:58 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

May 11, 2015 12:14:13 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

  x 1,000.

This question is for EVT1 as well... 

How do you force help on people that don't want it?  There are many homeless people that are so far down the rabbit hole of mental illness they aren't rational enough to want or see help. 

I think it's all well and good to point fingers at those big meanies... but those big meanies also support the idea that you can't force someone into treatment against their will. 

Maybe not- but we can sure afford to offer the opportunity and a path out of despair for anyone that finds themselves in that situation.

We really need to get away from this 'lifestyle' idea and realize that so many of these people in need of help are temporary.  No one is promoting that fact- they run with the steak and lobster abuse stories.  It is judgmental bullshit.    Just the fact that there are so many ex-military out there suffering should be enough to break the stereotype- but it doesn't.  "No way I would ever wind up on food stamps or Medicaid, or lose my home"  Famous last words

[dondub]

I used to think it was just naivete that had people saying things such as they should just get up off their own arse and get to work, or some such drivel. Now, after 2 years of volunteering at a downtown foodbank and dealing with all the mentally challenged, the street alkis, etc., I realize it's just a mean spirited assault on these poor people...a mocking, a sinister finger pointing because they may get tax dollars, and even a sneer that we need euthanasia. How sick and twisted are these castigating a-holes?

[Phoenix84]

I suppose it depends on how you define "success" in regards to the homeless population. Is success just getting them off the streets and into houses? Or is success helping them with their issues and reintegrating them into society? Obviously, if you take a homeless population, give them all homes, and define success as getting them off the street, then you'll have a near 100% "success" rate.

The article wasn't very clear on what it defined as "success" and what the ultimate outcomes of these homeless people were. Did they have a higher rate of re integrating into society? Did they follow through on kicking their addictions or addressing their mental health issues at a higher rate?  How well did they treat the homes they were given?  I have no idea, the article doesn't say. The article hints that overall costs went down, but doesn't elaborate.

Overall, I'd have to withhold judgment on the program until I saw more data.

[Shooby]

It's all fine and dandy but one has to look at zoning and regulations with the constant bleating for Govt to "Do Something" that has resulted in the ability for people of minimal means to even find a roof over their heads. The constant bleating for Govt Regulations, ordinances, by those who think govt solves all the problems of the World, have created the very problems they now are complaining about.

[thyme4change]

I believe the writer of that article has unfulfilled dreams of being a novelist.  His description of everything was way too flowery.  I rolled my eyes so many times, they came loose in the sockets.

[Shooby]

LOL!!!!!

[happyhoix]

May 12, 2015 6:19:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I suppose it depends on how you define "success" in regards to the homeless population. Is success just getting them off the streets and into houses? Or is success helping them with their issues and reintegrating them into society? Obviously, if you take a homeless population, give them all homes, and define success as getting them off the street, then you'll have a near 100% "success" rate.

The article wasn't very clear on what it defined as "success" and what the ultimate outcomes of these homeless people were. Did they have a higher rate of re integrating into society? Did they follow through on kicking their addictions or addressing their mental health issues at a higher rate?  How well did they treat the homes they were given?  I have no idea, the article doesn't say. The article hints that overall costs went down, but doesn't elaborate.

Overall, I'd have to withhold judgment on the program until I saw more data.

My understanding from the article was their idea of 'success' was providing better living conditions for these people, at less expense to the tax payer.

People that live under bridges tend to have health issues, and use the ER's to provide the treatment. One study I saw provided a free clinic for the homeless, along with someone working in the trenches, following up with the folks to make sure they get some food/take their meds, and it greatly reduced the number of visits to the ER, and the time the days they spent in the hospital - which saved taxpayer money.

So if you provide them with a save place to sleep, where they aren't preyed on by the shitty people who prey on these kinds of folks, where they have a toilet, clean water and heat, you end up needing less policing, less ER care, and in the long term, you save money.

I think we have to give up the idea that every homeless person is capable of getting cleaned up and getting a job. Someone who has a mental health issue, who has self medicated with drugs for ten years, is going to be so mentally fried that they wouldn't even be able to get a job flipping burgers.

The question is what we do with those kinds of people - go back to Victorian times where these kinds of people either were supported by their families or died in the streets? Or try to find a humane way to house them at the least cost to the taxpayer?

[mroped]

The piece was written to appeal to the public and to their sens of humanity. That alone does not make it unrealistic.
what this fellow did-Temo something - is not realy a novelty. He just found ways to fund projects that would actually help more and have better results.
Funds that would be or are apropriated in budgets for this type of thing are almost inexistent. Typicaly the funds go to Medicaid or outreach programs etc.
Nobody realy approaches the issue in a way like that: "Okay, let's get this person of the street, put him in a home, clean him up and with no strings attached offer him help. Maybe that humane light inside of him is not out yet so we can rekindle his spirit!"

It more goes like: limited number of beds in the shelter! Be there by 9pm or you don't get in. No alcohol, no smoking! Be out by 8am. We are not responsible for your personal belongings."
it is great that they get at least that but nudging them a litle further will definetly have better outcomes.

[happyhoix]

May 12, 2015 6:59:28 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

The more I think about this idea, the less I'm really enamored with it. It reeks of a way to 'do something' without actually doing anything to fix the root causes. 

Again, in some situations I can see the benefit, but for others it's a hollow gesture. I mentioned teens in my last post, but they wouldn't benefit because if they are underage, they will be forced into or back into the foster system. Maybe those that have aged out will benefit. The severely mentally ill, sure you can give them a key and an address, but if they still remain on the street, have you solved anything for them?


i don't know it seems like the most vulnerable will still not get the help they need. 

The problem with getting them the help they need is 1) it's expensive 2) these  people don't have insurance, and 3) the public mental health hospitals that used to treat these kinds of people are mostly closed, to save money.

Used to be, prior to modern mental health medicines, the best you could do was house these people in a facility and hope they improve. Now there are medicines they can give to someone who has mental health problems, to stabilize them, so they end up getting a few days of treatment and then getting released back on the streets with a bottle of pills and the advice to not stop taking them - but no follow up.

The most humane thing to do would be to create beautiful rural campuses with free drugs/support groups/life skills professionals to help get these people functioning at the best level possible, to either return to society or to live permanently on campus, depending on their abilities. But that won't happen, not ever, because there is no money for it, and because there is big chunk of society who would resent providing pleasant, free living conditions and health care for what they perceive to be slacking freeloaders.

[happyhoix]

Sroo I agree most of the public health facilities (especially the ones for poor people) were just holding pens to keep the crazy people away from the rest of us, but there were some that attempted to cure people.

And I agree that 72 hours isn't enough time to evaluate someone with mental health issues to figure out what they need - but if you don't have insurance that covers mental health issues, 72 hours is what you get. I knew a woman who was clearly having delusions and her family didn't want her to come back home - after 72 hours, here she came, driven back home by the police (because her family refused to come pick her up) - still as angry and abusive as she was before.

I also agree that it would be hard to find places willing to have such a facility in their neighborhood, but I still think the primary issue is finding the money to build and staff them. I think people are somewhat willing to spend money on homeless families with kids, or homeless vets, but your plain jane schizophrenic who hears voices - and smokes meth to self medicate - not a lot of public interest in helping those kinds of people.

[happyhoix]

May 12, 2015 10:39:35 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

All the insurance in the world won't do a bit of good if a person refuses treatment, and 72 hours is legally all the hospital is allowed to hold them.   I think we are mostly on the same page.  We just disagree to the cause of the problem.   

---

Nobody has made a comment on the other population that I mentioned.  The underage teens.  They wouldn't be able to touch this arrangement.   If they were to be offered a place to live under this arrangement,  how would they not get placed into the foster system.   A lot of them originally ran away from that same system or they ran away to escape their home life and did not want to be placed into that system. 

Very good point. Underage kids are a problem. They are very easy prey for the shitty people that hang around looking to exploit them, and will avoid most assistance because they don't want to get caught up in the foster system, or sent back home. Very likely to get caught up in the drug and/or sex trade.

Haven't heard of any programs that were particularly successful with them, other than just the shelters that hand out free food and a free place to sleep, no questions asked.

[Phoenix84]

May 12, 2015 9:35:01 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

May 12, 2015 6:19:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I suppose it depends on how you define "success" in regards to the homeless population. Is success just getting them off the streets and into houses? Or is success helping them with their issues and reintegrating them into society? Obviously, if you take a homeless population, give them all homes, and define success as getting them off the street, then you'll have a near 100% "success" rate.

The article wasn't very clear on what it defined as "success" and what the ultimate outcomes of these homeless people were. Did they have a higher rate of re integrating into society? Did they follow through on kicking their addictions or addressing their mental health issues at a higher rate?  How well did they treat the homes they were given?  I have no idea, the article doesn't say. The article hints that overall costs went down, but doesn't elaborate.

Overall, I'd have to withhold judgment on the program until I saw more data.

My understanding from the article was their idea of 'success' was providing better living conditions for these people, at less expense to the tax payer.

People that live under bridges tend to have health issues, and use the ER's to provide the treatment. One study I saw provided a free clinic for the homeless, along with someone working in the trenches, following up with the folks to make sure they get some food/take their meds, and it greatly reduced the number of visits to the ER, and the time the days they spent in the hospital - which saved taxpayer money.

So if you provide them with a save place to sleep, where they aren't preyed on by the shitty people who prey on these kinds of folks, where they have a toilet, clean water and heat, you end up needing less policing, less ER care, and in the long term, you save money.

I think we have to give up the idea that every homeless person is capable of getting cleaned up and getting a job. Someone who has a mental health issue, who has self medicated with drugs for ten years, is going to be so mentally fried that they wouldn't even be able to get a job flipping burgers.

The question is what we do with those kinds of people - go back to Victorian times where these kinds of people either were supported by their families or died in the streets? Or try to find a humane way to house them at the least cost to the taxpayer?

I agree with Sroo's assessment that a program like this would help some, but not all homeless.

People are homeless for a variety of different reasons.  It won't help people who are so far gone they're living in their own world.  And it may not be the best for transient homeless either, or the homeless by choice.

[djAdvocate]

May 12, 2015 17:28:40 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

May 12, 2015 9:35:01 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

My understanding from the article was their idea of 'success' was providing better living conditions for these people, at less expense to the tax payer.

People that live under bridges tend to have health issues, and use the ER's to provide the treatment. One study I saw provided a free clinic for the homeless, along with someone working in the trenches, following up with the folks to make sure they get some food/take their meds, and it greatly reduced the number of visits to the ER, and the time the days they spent in the hospital - which saved taxpayer money.

So if you provide them with a save place to sleep, where they aren't preyed on by the shitty people who prey on these kinds of folks, where they have a toilet, clean water and heat, you end up needing less policing, less ER care, and in the long term, you save money.

I think we have to give up the idea that every homeless person is capable of getting cleaned up and getting a job. Someone who has a mental health issue, who has self medicated with drugs for ten years, is going to be so mentally fried that they wouldn't even be able to get a job flipping burgers.

The question is what we do with those kinds of people - go back to Victorian times where these kinds of people either were supported by their families or died in the streets? Or try to find a humane way to house them at the least cost to the taxpayer?

I agree with Sroo's assessment that a program like this would help some, but not all homeless.

People are homeless for a variety of different reasons.  It won't help people who are so far gone they're living in their own world.  And it may not be the best for transient homeless either, or the homeless by choice.

two quick points, if i may.

first of all, nobody said this would solve all the problem.  the success rate is apparently about 85%, which, although not all, is certainly a healthy "dent".

second, one of the people helped by this project had been homeless for (20) years.  i can't honestly imagine someone too far gone for this to work, but if that happens in 15% of the cases, that is a much smaller problem to tackle, right?

[happyhoix]

first of all, nobody said this would solve all the problem. the success rate is apparently about 85%, which, although not all, is certainly a healthy "dent".

Exactly.

I don't think we should say we won't do anything because we can't figure out how to fix 100% of this problem. Fixing even 85% of the problem is far better than doing nothing, and this solution seems to be cost effective.