How should we define homelessness? - Two for one deal from the Progressive today!

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Original (Archive)

November is National Homelessness Awareness Month, and it has been over fourteen years since the federal government last updated its definition of homelessness. It is time to change that to reflect how people experience homelessness today, and to secure more funding to end housing instability.

An individual is considered homeless if they lack a fixed, adequate nighttime residence (including those staying in a homeless shelter), lose their residence without another place to go or are fleeing domestic violence.

Millions of people cycle in and out of homelessness each year. And that’s just when counting by the narrow federal definition. The actual number is likely far higher.

As a 2016 study highlighted, many people who lose their stable housing make the difficult decision to move into others’ homes. Examples of this include a parent and adult child living together, couchsurfing with friends, or two families living together. In 2019, 3.7 million people lived in households like this, most of whom are viewed by the government as at-risk of homelessness.

But staying temporarily with a friend or family member is not permanent stable housing. People living in doubled-up households represent a wide variety of situations, and those who need help to avoid losing what little stability they have shouldn’t be denied it because they don’t match a stereotypical view of being homeless.

There is precedent for this. Since 2009, unaccompanied youth between eighteen and twenty-five, as well as families with children, have been considered under a more extensive definition of homelessness by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Youth and families with children are considered homeless if they have not lived independently in permanent housing for a long time, frequently move and anticipate this will continue. The definition for these groups includes doubled-up households. In the 2022-2023 school year, 61 percent of homeless children in New York City were living in doubled-up households.

Many individuals older than twenty-five and without children meet this criteria. People who experience federally-defined homelessness sometimes temporarily stay with friends or family. For many of them, however, these arrangements are usually not a long-term solution, and are not an indication that they don’t need services.

Another 2022 study shows even these short stays can threaten an individuals’ priority for homeless services, such as shelters and housing, and jeopardize their ability to permanently exit homelessness.

Denying access to assistance perpetuates racial disparities in homelessness services.

A 2013 report for HUD found that Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous and other non-white households were more likely to be doubled-up than white households. Doubled-up households were concentrated in cities and other urban areas across the United States. Latinx people experiencing homelessness are more likely to live in doubled-up housing conditions to avoid living in a shelter or on the street.

To be sure, those in the at-risk category are already eligible for homeless prevention services through HUD’s Emergency Solutions Grant such as permanent rental subsidies, eviction prevention and rapid rehousing programs. Rapid rehousing programs offer short-term services like finding rental housing, covering move-in costs, rent, deposits, utilities and negotiating with landlords.

Homelessness prevention, however, is a small piece of the overall federal response to homelessness, with the least amount of funding and the lowest priority. Counting temporary doubled-up housing situations as at-risk of homelessness makes less sense when individuals are experiencing literal homelessness every other night.

Permanent rental vouchers keep people housed. Yet families can spend up to six years on the waitlist for the Housing Choice Voucher, a permanent rental subsidy, especially if they are only at-risk of homelessness.

Policy makers, elected officials, funders and activists need to update the definition of homelessness to represent the much larger number of people who are actually experiencing homelessness. It is vital to dedicate more resources to those who are staying in precarious housing situations that can leave them homeless on the streets or in shelters at any time.
 
I did volunteer work for a charity here that was basically providing support and job training to ex-cons and poor people in general to make them more hireable so they could make a start for themselves, which was a thing I can get behind. One day I was standing outside and this shabby guy shambles up to me and hits me up for money. After a second of literal speachlessness, I point at the building right behind me and say, "Dude, there is a charity RIGHT HERE that you can walk into, what're you asking me for money for?" He waved his hand and said, "Naw, they ain' gon' help me." One of the ex-cons who'd gone through the program and was helping to run the place came out and shooed the guy off, told me that there were a bunch of bums like him around the area who would just go around panhandling instead of doing thing one to improve their lives.

That to me is the distinction. There are plenty of people out there who will, with opportunity, improve their lives. But there are at least as many people who'll just lay around getting high. As a society, we would improve conditions considerably if we sorted those two groups out, helped set up the first group to be productive citizens, and took the second group out into the ocean before scuttling the entire boat a few miles from shore.
 
I define homelessness as a worthless surplus population of vermin that should be exterminated. At least, the "perpetually homeless" who have no desire to improve their life, be a contributing member of society, or have any respect for the social contract. I have the unfortunate "pleasure" of having to be around the homeless every day at work, and being around them has killed any sympathy or compassion I may once have held for them. Most homeless WANT to live that way because they have no desire to play by society's rules and be decent people who work hard to support themselves, be it because they're drug addicts who don't want to get clean, lazy assholes who don't want to work, or mentally ill people who don't want to get treatment.
So... basically lucas werner then

xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx said:
This is ultimately the problem, what do you do with people who choose to be incompatible with society? Let them shoot up in the woods and get eaten by bears when they OD? Do you want the cops to have the legal authority to commit schizos against their will? People want to duck the problems by claiming it's an issue with housing costs, but few long term homeless are that way due to economics.
You do nothing with them. As in no free medical care, no shelters, no access to food banks, no access to towns or cities, no support of any kind for anyone like that. If they want to live like that and act like loons then they live or die entirely on their own. The problem will very quickly solve itself
 
And it's difficult to know if the second group disguises themselves like the first and third groups.
Not really
Group 1 is the permitly disabled like Chris Chan or physical disabled.
Group 2 is clearly drug sickness no disability.
Group 3 is people who incurred financial hardship
Group 1 usually has supports in place for housing food community services medical ECT
Number 3 is rare however when does happen often these people rebound quickly when given proper support. Your average adult would rather not be living in poverty so the incentive is there to find work and improve there status

Group 2 is the drug zombies
It's a lifestyle not a disability
And it's their own moral failings and choices that prevent them for changing their own status.

There maybe some overlap in groups however if one looks at the individual and how the got where they did you'll find more offen then not it was the choices that got them there
 
For the genuinely homeless I really really feel sorry for but they are the current minority of homeless, atleast in the UK the rest have Drink an Drug problems (and as a former alcoholic I do sympathise with them) with a smaller population of the Mentally ill that care an social services have failed or where never a high priority to begin wtih.

There would be fewer homeless people if the government actually ran the support services themselves instead of farming it out to various nonprofits ran by their friends and family, whose continued existence now requires that homelessness isn't ever solved.

As I said above I have sympathy for the Drink an Drug users, especially the one's who are terminal cases - but in my Home City we had an amazing pair of Homeless centres set up kinda mini hotels very small single rooms and a very unique arrangement and 2 main rules -

1) No Drink.
2) No Drugs.

The unique part was they had a safe box one per room you placed and Drink or Drugs in you didn't get reported, didn't get them confiscated and disposed of you'd be able to get it back when you left for the day, if you got caught with either in your room you'd be removed an banned for a week - 200 small rooms per centre and each one had on average about 10 - 20 people per night, an they where the ones actively looking for help and got it because of the services on offer.

Both have now shut down, and the services have been rerouted to various Charities that are strangely connected to the Local Labour council members who sit on the board an draw a salary from them for a minimal amount of work.

The one's who while they where open got help and where quite successful and a smaller shelter might have worked better but as a whole it was a massive failure in terms of scope and real impact.
 
Last edited:
The unique part was they had a safe box one per room you placed and Drink or Drugs in you didn't get reported, didn't get them confiscated and disposed of you'd be able to get it back when you left for the day, if you got caught with either in your room you'd be removed an banned for a week - 200 small rooms per centre and each one had on average about 10 - 20 people per night, an they where the ones actively looking for help and got it because of the services on offer.
Sounds like a good idea, just getting them used to being away from their vice of choice voluntarily for even a short while is still a vast improvement to being permanently zonked outta your mind. Wonder if there's some additional aspects of psychology around giving them up for the moment being rewarded with a safe, warm place to sleep. Waking up sober probably helps a great deal to accepting support services as well.

The one's who while they where open got help and where quite successful and a smaller shelter might have worked better but as a whole it was a massive failure in terms of scope and real impact.
That really is the best you can hope for though. There is absolutely zero shelter programs or rehab programs that can actually solve the issue. Addicts don't manifest fully formed from the ether, they are created through tough life circumstances leading to poor decision making or coping mechanisms. To make a meaningful impact would require addressing those roots, which might as well be embedded into the heart of civilization - anything with freedom is gonna have the freedom to fail. To actually truly prevent these outcomes from happening in the first place would require changing human nature at a fundamental level. You'd have an easier time installing a dimmer switch on the surface of the sun.

I wish we'd stop fixating on those we can't help at any reasonable level, while dismissing those who we can and did help as 'not enough'. All it does is burn out good people running good programs because the narrative always becomes on of failures rather than of the successes. These people chose to walk out into the shit, best we can do is leave an open door for the ones who want to come back in and just need a bit of help staying there.
 
Said it before, saying it again. Those "Housing First" programs don't work. How do I know? My city trumpeted the announcement of the Thurgood Marshall Apartments, at a cost of millions for 12 units with 24/7 support on-site. I've tried and tried to get just ONE success story out of them and they just send me a boilerplate and direct me to their website. No success stories to be found. If there were, that person would be on the fucking news.

You can't help those who refuse to help themselves. I lived among them in not one, but two rooming houses (fun times being the only female in both situations - the stories I have about those joints holy shit) and when I was in the heavier throes of my addiction, I packed my ass up and tried to get help and was DENIED. Wrong color, that was the South Side and I am not Hispanic. No pity for the white girl on dope.

So yeah, I've seen a lot of this shit and feel not one iota for the people who choose the lifestyle. As 99 percent of the time it is a choice.

If a person on the street really wants to get out, they will. That is not me exaggerating- those people are willing to do ANYTHING to get out of that situation.

I stayed clean. I was constantly looking for work. If I wasn't looking for work, I was either eating, working, or sleeping. Eventually, I got a lucky break and someone helped me out. I went to churches and community-run centers, not government programs. People can tell the fucking difference between a tweaker who physically and psychologically can now longer function without the drugs, no matter how much rehab or therapy they go through, a lazy bum who couldn't hack it in the civilized world, and people who just really need a hand to get their shit together. I was in the latter category, and what did I get? I got those hands.

It's almost as if you have to WORK to get out of it. It's almost as if it requires effort.
 
Back
Top Bottom