<story><title>Finland provides housing and counseling to the homeless (2020)</title><url>https://scoop.me/housing-first-finland-homelessness/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bumby</author><text>Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean?&lt;p&gt;I can get on board with housing being a basic human need that society helps supply. But that’s subtly different than the OP’s claim of housing with virtually the same freedom from rules. I’m not sure “unfettered housing” is a human right.</text></item><item><author>duped</author><text>A big one is drug&amp;#x2F;alcohol use.&lt;p&gt;One of the understandings behind &amp;quot;housing first&amp;quot; policies is that when you treat chronic homelessness as a public health problem, you need to attack the big symptoms first (being unhoused) before you can see the outcomes you want (being a productive member of society).&lt;p&gt;Housing isn&amp;#x27;t a reward, it&amp;#x27;s a basic human need. And it&amp;#x27;s the baseline for treating people - because you cannot treat people if you cannot find them.</text></item><item><author>bumby</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you&amp;#x27;re offering, perhaps the &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t all that helpful.
If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you elaborate on the the specific rules you’re referring to? That might help guide the discussion.&lt;p&gt;Because at face value, there seems to be an issue where there isn’t an acknowledgment that with freedom comes responsibility. That responsibility looks an awful lot like rules that many people in these situations struggle to manage. It seems hard to argue for one without necessitating the other but maybe some specific examples could clarify your point.</text></item><item><author>vidarh</author><text>&amp;gt; People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom&lt;p&gt;This is the significant distinction between providing crappy shelter and providing a home. A lot of shelter spaces come with a lot of strings, and the first step to fixing the issues is to accept that you need to cut many or most of the strings - if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you&amp;#x27;re offering, perhaps the &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t all that helpful.&lt;p&gt;If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; (3) People are naturally generous&amp;#x2F;irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types&lt;p&gt;Is it worse having them in a house than on the streets? And how much of a problem is this going to be when everyone involved have &lt;i&gt;their own&lt;/i&gt; shelter?  It&amp;#x27;s only a windfall if you provide it to a few rather than everyone who needs housing.</text></item><item><author>NoZebra120vClip</author><text>I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I&amp;#x27;ve observed around here:&lt;p&gt;(1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent&amp;#x2F;bills seems anathema to them.&lt;p&gt;(2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can&amp;#x27;t manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends&amp;#x2F;family.&lt;p&gt;(3) People are naturally generous&amp;#x2F;irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun.&lt;p&gt;Around here, the brass ring of housing is Section 8, and Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. If you&amp;#x27;re not abiding by the rules then you&amp;#x27;re out on your ear. I don&amp;#x27;t know how many people wash out, but my case managers have inundated me with certificates and kudos for being one of their best, longest-term clients.&lt;p&gt;Housing First type approaches is great, and I&amp;#x27;m glad to hear that they&amp;#x27;ve &amp;quot;ended homelessness&amp;quot;, even though that seems to sort of be contradicted by the 20% figure that was constantly cited in the article.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>abofh</author><text>Addiction isn&amp;#x27;t a root problem of anything, it&amp;#x27;s a symptom of other things that led you to become addicted to whatever (gambling, drugs, etc)&lt;p&gt;If you address only the symptoms and not the sociatal issues that exacerbate them, you won&amp;#x27;t actually solve the problem.</text></comment>
<story><title>Finland provides housing and counseling to the homeless (2020)</title><url>https://scoop.me/housing-first-finland-homelessness/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bumby</author><text>Don’t you think it makes sense to attack the root problem (addiction) as well as the “big symptoms”? Wouldn’t that look like a rule to be in a treatment program or be otherwise clean?&lt;p&gt;I can get on board with housing being a basic human need that society helps supply. But that’s subtly different than the OP’s claim of housing with virtually the same freedom from rules. I’m not sure “unfettered housing” is a human right.</text></item><item><author>duped</author><text>A big one is drug&amp;#x2F;alcohol use.&lt;p&gt;One of the understandings behind &amp;quot;housing first&amp;quot; policies is that when you treat chronic homelessness as a public health problem, you need to attack the big symptoms first (being unhoused) before you can see the outcomes you want (being a productive member of society).&lt;p&gt;Housing isn&amp;#x27;t a reward, it&amp;#x27;s a basic human need. And it&amp;#x27;s the baseline for treating people - because you cannot treat people if you cannot find them.</text></item><item><author>bumby</author><text>&amp;gt;&lt;i&gt;if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you&amp;#x27;re offering, perhaps the &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t all that helpful.
If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you elaborate on the the specific rules you’re referring to? That might help guide the discussion.&lt;p&gt;Because at face value, there seems to be an issue where there isn’t an acknowledgment that with freedom comes responsibility. That responsibility looks an awful lot like rules that many people in these situations struggle to manage. It seems hard to argue for one without necessitating the other but maybe some specific examples could clarify your point.</text></item><item><author>vidarh</author><text>&amp;gt; People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom&lt;p&gt;This is the significant distinction between providing crappy shelter and providing a home. A lot of shelter spaces come with a lot of strings, and the first step to fixing the issues is to accept that you need to cut many or most of the strings - if a significant proportion of homeless prefer homelessness to the help you&amp;#x27;re offering, perhaps the &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; isn&amp;#x27;t all that helpful.&lt;p&gt;If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; (3) People are naturally generous&amp;#x2F;irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types&lt;p&gt;Is it worse having them in a house than on the streets? And how much of a problem is this going to be when everyone involved have &lt;i&gt;their own&lt;/i&gt; shelter?  It&amp;#x27;s only a windfall if you provide it to a few rather than everyone who needs housing.</text></item><item><author>NoZebra120vClip</author><text>I wonder how they tackle a few problems such as I&amp;#x27;ve observed around here:&lt;p&gt;(1) People are comfortable on the streets, they enjoy the freedom, or they are at least accustomed to it, and paying rent&amp;#x2F;bills seems anathema to them.&lt;p&gt;(2) People are severely disabled by mental illness or addiction, and simply can&amp;#x27;t manage a household by themselves. Or they never learned how and they fail dramatically. This may be the 20% contingent who are moving back in with friends&amp;#x2F;family.&lt;p&gt;(3) People are naturally generous&amp;#x2F;irresponsible with belongings and income that they will spontaneously share the windfall with everyone they know. So your shelter for one man will end up being a flophouse for a rotating cast of shady types, and poor housekeeping skills definitely become operative here. Homes like this ultimately run into big trouble, like massive drug raids, fires, prostitution or something. Not fun.&lt;p&gt;Around here, the brass ring of housing is Section 8, and Section 8 has strict rules about guests and inspections and income paperwork every year. If you&amp;#x27;re not abiding by the rules then you&amp;#x27;re out on your ear. I don&amp;#x27;t know how many people wash out, but my case managers have inundated me with certificates and kudos for being one of their best, longest-term clients.&lt;p&gt;Housing First type approaches is great, and I&amp;#x27;m glad to hear that they&amp;#x27;ve &amp;quot;ended homelessness&amp;quot;, even though that seems to sort of be contradicted by the 20% figure that was constantly cited in the article.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>toddmorey</author><text>Well don’t frame it as a right, think in terms of desired outcome.&lt;p&gt;If a user relapses, does removing their housing help in recovery?</text></comment>