[zuzu89]

> will be in actually helping the drug problem…

while this should be obvious to anyone who has seen the camps, we still get articles that claim "the obvious answer to homelessness" is just more housing. Of course we need more housing but how do cheaper rents convince addicts to change their lifestyle?

it's the conventional argument that's being brought up all the time while claiming "everyone's ignoring it".

doing some novel reporting on homelessness without leaving their homes:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/homeles...

[opportune]

From what I’ve read, the homeless people who sleep on the street and generally create trouble (due to severe addiction and other mental issues) are only about 1/3 of the homeless. A lot of the other homeless you would never recognize as homeless, don’t sleep rough, and are not necessarily “chronically homeless” - those are the ones that would benefit from cheaper housing

[nibbleshifter]

A combination of "supported" and "independent living" housing options is optimal, using shelters as a short term onboarding and sorting facility.

This also requires a solid policy around social and affordable housing as part of mixed use developments (as opposed to creating social housing "ghettos").

Needle exchanges and safe consumption facilities can be used for initial contact and outreach.

Basically you need to get people into a position where you can help them, then help them to the point where they can help themselves, and provide realistic pathways for this to happen - along with avoiding unrealistic expectations and avoiding pointless gate keeping such as demanding service users remaining clean/sober, etc.

Think of it as solving for Maslow's hierarchy of needs. You can fix their drug and mental issues later, right now you need them off the street where they get food/heat/water/shelter, health support, etc.

[Zigurd]

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Why wouldn't people who sleep rough benefit from a housing first policy?

[opportune]

Sorry I don’t mean that 1/3 sleep rough, more that 1/3 have big mental issues (and tend to be the ones that sleep rough and the ones you envision when you hear the word “homeless”). For that cohort housing first makes them not-homeless but is insufficient to address their problems. They’re not able to take care of themselves and would need a lot of labor to keep their place habitable and safe.

You would probably spend much more money on maintenance and cleaning than you would on the structure

[rootusrootus]

Because the rough sleeping is not the cause of their problems, so just addressing that by itself won't make their problems go away.

[naasking]

The evidence disagrees. Housing-first policies in multiple countries have been a smashing successes in reducing addiction, so clearly there are some factors you're missing. For instance, theft and violence is a huge reason homeless people avoid shelters. Having a sanctuary that's somewhat secure from thieves and muggers means they actually add some stability. Stability makes their lives less shitty which reduces the urges to use to escape their shitty situation. That's just one example I've read about.