There is a fallacy here: it is not just "one homogenous group of homeless" that you can help with the same turnkey solution. No, there are easy cases (people living out of their cars, still capable of holding down jobs, they just need help) and there are hard cases (people who lost their jobs and housing because they got addicted to drugs or couldn't stop drinking, or fell into mental illness), and probably many cases in between. We should throw lots of resources at easy cases: get them housing, make sure they can continue working or get them work, subsidize their rent but don't just give them a place (because people will value what they have to pay for vs. what they are given).
Hard cases...I'm not sure if many of them are ever going to be normal again. Many people with fentanyl addictions are just really messed up, and there isn't much we can do to solve their addictions. Same to a lesser extent for alcoholism, and mental health problems. Housing first also doesn't work well for them, because their addictions are so strong that they trash housing given to them, sell what they can, and wind up on the streets again because it is the best way to support their addiction.
I think because hard cases are so hard to solve, we should devote almost all of our resources on (a) kids (so they can avoid this fate) and (b) easy homeless cases so we can prevent them from becoming hard cases.
Many homeless advocates seem to want it both ways: that not every homeless is an addict (true), but that we should throw the exact same resources at addicts as we do at people who just couldn't pay rent (false). I don't understand why they do this, it doesn't help their cause (and they don't make progress because their solutions are not well matched to the problems they are solving).
Hard cases...I'm not sure if many of them are ever going to be normal again. Many people with fentanyl addictions are just really messed up, and there isn't much we can do to solve their addictions. Same to a lesser extent for alcoholism, and mental health problems. Housing first also doesn't work well for them, because their addictions are so strong that they trash housing given to them, sell what they can, and wind up on the streets again because it is the best way to support their addiction.
I think because hard cases are so hard to solve, we should devote almost all of our resources on (a) kids (so they can avoid this fate) and (b) easy homeless cases so we can prevent them from becoming hard cases.
Many homeless advocates seem to want it both ways: that not every homeless is an addict (true), but that we should throw the exact same resources at addicts as we do at people who just couldn't pay rent (false). I don't understand why they do this, it doesn't help their cause (and they don't make progress because their solutions are not well matched to the problems they are solving).