The evidence, from Utah (Salt Lake City also attempted and was somewhat successful with Housing First) to Finland says otherwise. Housing the homeless is cheaper and gets them stability to address the core issues (addiction, job placement, etc) with social services (which is incredibly difficult when folks are transient and sleeping rough).
With that said:
> Meanwhile, illegal immigration creates a homeless population many countries are unwilling to house. That is sabotaging the shift to housing first.
You can't house everyone who comes to your country with no means to support themselves. Resources are finite.
That same issue applies to different states. It always makes me roll my eyes when conservative pundits point to blue states' homelessness as a reason why socially liberal policies fail; no, but social policies will attract people needing them from anywhere accessible that doesn't have those policies. Hence why it needs to be done at a national level.
Not to say the general approach is bad, but I think the cost side is overplayed. It depends a lot on what the cost/structure of your existing response is, and critically, whether you can actually realize any savings after the shift. Both because it is hard to reduce staffing/infrastructure, but also because many costs are not actually born directly by the city (eg medical costs are born by the hospitals).
> Not to say the general approach is bad, but I think the cost side is overplayed.
Not sure why I, as an immigrant to Europe myself, should pay cover the cost for illegal aliens while I cannot provide properly for my own relatives in my home country. It is unconscionable.
We live in an imperfect world with many constraints and trade-offs. Why did you have to emigrate, while others were already born into lucky countries? Why are some people denied the right to emigrate?
Life is various shades of unfair and we're more likely to make a better world if we optimize for well being rather than fairness (of which there are multiple competing and contradictory definitions).
> Why did you have to emigrate, while others were already born into lucky countries?
A lot of people worked very hard to make the place I immigrated from the place it is today, most of them are still there. No luck about it.
> Why are some people denied the right to emigrate?
As far as I know all EU countries give everyone equal rights to immigrate. Maybe you should check your facts.
> Life is various shades of unfair and we're more likely to make a better world if we optimize for well being rather than fairness
How exactly is it optimizing for well being to ignore the corruption, injustice and bad governance in Africa?
Europeans should open their eyes, the world is collapsing around them while they sign treaties with China which is actively destroying Africa while committing genocide in their own country - and Europe does not care. Russia is busy oppressing their own people and it's neighbors while Germany is building a pipeline to them. This behaviour of Europe is pathetic cowardice, grow a backbone. Spending my tax money on illegal immigrants does not make the world fairer.
There are a lot of reasons to be homeless and not want to stay in a homeless shelter. A big one is security. When I was homeless and learning to code, I couldn’t afford to replace my laptop. People told me that if I stayed in a homeless shelter, there was a good chance my laptop would be stolen. I chose not to stay in one for that reason alone.
A few years later, I offered to let a homeless coding student stay with me for a couple weeks while she got housing lined up. She didn’t have one of her own, so I gave her my old MacBook Air. She made arrangements to stay in a shelter, left my place, and her laptop was stolen within a week.
Safety & security matter, and any solution that is going to effectively address homelessness needs to take this into account.
No, but it's almost impossible to get out of homelessness without it. It's really hard to do anything more with your day if you have to spend most of it making sure you have enough calories and a "safe" place to sleep.
This doesn't fix everything, but there is a not-as-small-as-you-might-think subset of people for whom the only reason they continue to be homeless is they can't do anything other than figure out what they're gonna eat that day
"for whom the only reason they continue to be homeless is they can't do anything other than figure out what they're gonna eat that day"
I'm not sure I believe this. Why did they become homeless in first place? With most there is an underlying issue. It might be that they are a felon, addict, or other medical issue. It's not that hard to ask for a job while also asking for money or food. Especially if you're already going to food establishment dumpster or begging outside of them.
The person I know the best who homeless had a combination of issues. He was in a coma and lost his job. He was also required to pay child support and the bank account ran dry during that time. A warrant was issued and he was arrested. You can't find any "good" jobs with a record and warrants being issued. He basically gave up on the system and finds it easier to just let family support him.
I think you are vastly underestimating how easy it is to go from poor to homeless. There was a ~3 year period of my life where all it would have taken is one bad month. Just one. And it wasn't for lack of trying, or because of laziness or mental illness. Just real bad luck and starting out in a not-great place within a not-great system.
Homelessness is a hole that is easy to fall into and damn hard to crawl out of, and not to be insensitive but the assumptions you're making are part of the problem.
When you assume that homelessness is fundamentally caused by a fault in the person, that person is basically dammed to stay homeless. The things you say here are the same reasons people give to not hire a homeless person. "They must either be crazy or lazy, neither of which is an employee I want".
That's not to mention the fact that there are a surprising number of homeless people that do have jobs, but just don't make enough money to save up to get anything better (which, yes, is a failing of the system). Most people don't realize this if they haven't lived it, but being poor is very expensive.
> He basically gave up on the system and finds it easier to just let family support him.
Some people don't have a family that could support another person.
"When you assume that homelessness is fundamentally caused by a fault in the person, "
When did I say that? The stuff I listed, like addiction, other medical issues, and the failings of the system aren't personal faults.
"I think you are vastly underestimating how easy it is to go from poor to homeless."
I've made no such claim. My claim is that finding food is probably not the main problem keeping homeless people homeless. You're talking about poor -> homeless, I'm talking about other direction of homeless -> poor (in response to the parent comment). Food may be a component, but I think it's more likely issues in the system like not hiring people with a record, medical or addiction issues, or just not being able to afford housing due to lack of good employment, property taxes. These are quite expensive compared to food and lack the level of charity and government support that is given to food (SNAP, WIC, food pantries, etc), not to mention individuals are more likely to give someone a meal than a place to stay or a job.
The model used in Finland is anything but "just giving the homeless a shelter". It's accompanied by a lot of social work, together with medical, mental and substance abuse care.
The reason for providing housing (not just a shelter, although those exist too) is that social work and care are ineffective when a person is homeless. When someone spends all their energy on staying warm, clean, safe and fed, they are unable to help themselves to a better life.
Providing housing was found to be more effective than adding the same amount of funding to social and medical programs.
Extensive research has been done with this, I'm sure you can find some in English language too if you find the article too hard to believe.
That's kind of a strong statement to make without some explanation. I'm curious, what is the core of the problem you are referencing that free shelter doesn't "fix"? Mental health, addiction, something else entirely?
Could you be a bit more specific? People end up homeless because they are cut from society, have no social support to fall back to, no way of supporting themselves. Most commonly they get to that situation due to mental illness and addiction/substance abuse is an ever-present comorbidity with that.
But the fact is, not having a shelter, running water, a way to cover their basic needs is what amplifies their suffering and dispairs to level where they simply can't get back on their feet. They can't get a job if you smell, your clothes are dirty and you're desperate and hungry. A shelter is a necessary condition I think for getting out of that cycle, and thus a very important first step.
I highly recommend listening to 99 Percent Invisible’s new 5 part series on homelessness in America. Saying shelter doesn’t fix the problem is misleading, as it is typically a required component to solving other issues that person is facing.
With that said:
> Meanwhile, illegal immigration creates a homeless population many countries are unwilling to house. That is sabotaging the shift to housing first.
You can't house everyone who comes to your country with no means to support themselves. Resources are finite.