Submitted by SnortingCoffee t3_118eh0l in washingtondc
pomegranatecloud t1_j9go7gp wrote
You can't make people accept help or go into shelters. Plenty of people want to remain homeless so they can keep doing drugs and drinking as they please.
moonbunnychan t1_j9h89wo wrote
There's a decent number of people that honestly just have zero interest in rejoining society. A lot of people don't want to accept that. "Just give them homes" isn't a catch all solution.
Wonderful-Emu-8716 t1_j9ii7da wrote
With the caveat that definitions of homelessness range widely, comparisons of rates of homelessness across the OECD seem to show that while, yes, there might be a baseline amount of homelessness that will be extremely difficult to solve, there is significant improvement to be had. Again, the statistics may be off, but Italy has 40% of the homelessness that we do and some of the Baltics have 33%. Japan's rate is essentially 0 (5000 total out of 125 million). I'm not arguing that any of those countries has it exactly right, but just saying a core group doesn't want to be housed seems to ignore that much larger numbers in other places are successfully housed.
Cheaperthantherapy13 t1_j9imh2x wrote
Consider that the countries you referenced might not have the same (perhaps overly-) robust protections for the individual liberties of the mentally ill. If a schizophrenic person wants to remain unmedicated and living under a bridge, there’s very little that can be done to force them to assimilate to live like a ‘normal’ person or be permanently institutionalized. That’s not the case in Japan.
ClydeFrog1313 t1_j9jvvi1 wrote
Totally agree, I was wondering how other countries go about dealing with homeless a couple days ago. I currently have pulled up (but haven't read yet) a 20 page policy review on Dutch strategies to combat homelessness. I'm sure in someways they are much more progressive but in others more conservative.
What I've found is that in many places in Western Europe, they simply wouldn't tolerate homeless living in public parks like in DC but at the same time probably provide much more safety net obviously. I'm just curious how they treat that underlying baseline that seems to exist everywhere.
mediocre-spice t1_j9hfsas wrote
No one wakes up and decides to be homeless for funsies. Some people "chose" homeless because of mental illness (paranoia, addiction) or because the path to shelter and stability is not realistic. This means they need more help, not less.
resdivinae t1_j9jn9or wrote
>No one wakes up and decides to be homeless for funsies.
Uh, yes, they absolutely do. Ever hear of vagabonds? I saw a lot of them down in Charlottesville--they're usually young people who decide to just drop out of society and travel around the country by jumping on trains and stopping in cities/towns to beg for money and food.
FreemanCantJump t1_j9jpwpk wrote
There are tons of these types on the West Coast too. It's easy with warm weather.
Andre3000insideDAMN t1_j9i5lpj wrote
How do you know this? And if it’s factually true, don’t you think there’s a reason for that? Like they’ve been beaten down so bad by society that they have no desire to be apart of it again.
[deleted] t1_j9gxnd4 wrote
[removed]
pomegranatecloud t1_j9gz44x wrote
Do you have a solution or are you here just to point fingers and call names?
burrito-disciple t1_j9h9ww4 wrote
Nah u/lenme125 is just here to virtue signal and feel good about themselves. That way they can pretend that they're Compassionate Helpers without actually having to show compassion or help.
burrito-disciple t1_j9h9ohf wrote
...," they said, having literally no idea what they were talking about.
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9goziw wrote
housed people are much more likely to get sober and healthy than unhoused people, though.
And if McPherson Sq was cleared due to health issues, leaving people to wander off to other encampments doesn't actually solve those issues at all.
celj1234 t1_j9gsw9q wrote
Did you even read what the person you responded to said?
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9gt1rh wrote
>Plenty of people want to remain homeless so they can keep doing drugs and drinking as they please.
Give them shelter without preconditions and they're more likely to get sober. In other words, the whole "no help until you're sober" rule actually makes it less likely for people to get there.
TastesLike762 t1_j9gtex2 wrote
I mean “hey come on in and slam heroin in front of a bunch of people trying to get sober” doesn’t seem like a great plan.
frappeyourmom t1_j9h6wfv wrote
Going from “slamming heroin” every day to sober overnight has numerous studies to back up that that’s not a way to be sober sustainably long term. The most long term sustainable sober option is medication assisted treatment, that people still clutch their pearls about.
Like if any of you who are hardcore against drugs and would do any amount of research to see why harm reduction is the model that helps more people get sober and healthy with the assistance of MAT and able to get into housing and jobs long term like many of you claim to want them to get into, perhaps the policy failures that keep plaguing DC would get somewhere.
TastesLike762 t1_j9hf8tp wrote
I’m not hardcore against drugs. I’m suggesting that maybe the “hey you’re not coming in if you’re actively using dope” rule isn’t without merit and that it’s ok for a place to create and enforce rules.
Tuymaadaa t1_j9hjntb wrote
I hear your point about harm reduction, but from a budgetary perspective the ‘no conditions housing’ won’t make sense. Right or wrong, these programs are funded by foundations, cities, donations, and other good will and these stakeholders are interested in helping the most people the most cost effective way. That means help the ones who want it, don’t help the ones that don’t. Moreover, you can’t force a lifestyle change on a person who doesn’t want it. Also- what about harm reduction for people trying to avoid drugs, alcohol, and unstable, untreated addicts? It’s also not like it’s possible to create addicts/mentally unwell only housing.
No matter how much time, patience, resources, therapy (assuming they want it), and money are given to some people it won’t bring them to a base level of functional in mainstream society. This isn’t to say they’re undeserving of sympathy and support, but to say that in a society with limited resources and money services are going to go to the ones who stand to gain the most benefit.
frappeyourmom t1_j9hlgdt wrote
So I volunteer with one of the harm reduction organizations and I personally have made inroads with drug users who want help and to get sober. The one thing that’s stopping them is DC’s requirement that they have to be sober first. They don’t have the health insurance to be able to get sober because the main reason they use is pain management and they got addicted because of the opioid crisis. They don’t have a reliable address for Medicaid and they can’t use mine because I live in Virginia.
There IS money for programs, but DC has used more of that money to do sweeps and evictions than they have to get people into housing. LA has way more of a population to house and has been successful with a housing first model. So count up how many policy failures DC has and estimate how much money they could potentially save on sweeps if they prioritized housing instead of abstinence sobriety?
Tuymaadaa t1_j9hyz0w wrote
I hear you on that. I had multiple family members dealing with addiction. Some are doing extremely well, living their best clean life. Some are dead but while they were alive talked all about how they wanted to beat their addiction. The best support systems in the whole didn’t save them. So Im cynical when people say a lack of housing is their only barrier, especially when some people are primed to take what they can get. Addiction really is something that needs to be dealt with on an individual to individual basis.
More to your point though, I’m 100% in agreement that addiction is more of a health crisis and would be fine with methadone clinics being added to hospitals, which would be great harm reduction and a good use of city funds. Realistically though I don’t see that happening in downtown DC because what would people prefer- clearing of a tent city or establishment of a treatment center plus housing for addicts?
twenty-six-sixty-six t1_j9h28tm wrote
i mean the alternative is what you have now, with people shooting up on the street -- is that any better?
i don't think harm reduction programs solve these problems easily, but they're at least worth exploring
frappeyourmom t1_j9ha5bc wrote
Harm reduction isn’t easy, but usually when someone got addicted, it wasn’t easy either. Most of the people I speak to when I’m supporting them with fresh supplies say that they want to get clean, but they don’t know where to find support. The folx who can find MAT clinics and stay supported eventually do get sober. Sobriety isn’t an overnight thing. LA I believe has a housing first model that does get people housed and slowly weans them off of whatever they’re using on the streets and gets them onto a MAT regimen. There’s also a program in North Carolina that does the same thing. The main block to those programs being implemented nationwide are policy changes and funding.
Atar4xis t1_j9i4fg2 wrote
Nah, not worth exploring. What should happen is the homeless should be allowed to sleep in the v downtown botanist business at night. As for them shouting up, what business is it of anyone else?
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9gtr25 wrote
What we're doing now is not working. Housing first has worked many times in many different places. Sure, when you phrase it as "hey come on in and slam heroin in front of a bunch of people trying to get sober" it doesn't sound like the right thing to do, but just because it sounds bad in the most cynical possible framing doesn't mean it's not a huge step up from the patchwork nonsense we're trying now.
Does anyone think our current strategy is working well?
IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9gz4bp wrote
So who should have to shelter people who do drugs and likely won’t take care of their space. You willing to rent out a room to one?
I’d rather not have city paid drug dens.
spince t1_j9h9g91 wrote
>I’d rather not have city paid drug dens.
Tbh I'd prefer this over a city subsidized open air homeless encampment where presumably the same activity happens.
frappeyourmom t1_j9h5ryx wrote
You know what actually helps prevent drug deaths and exposure to needles?
Safe use facilities, which cities like DC refuse to legalize.
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h0r2c wrote
Currently the district is paying scummy landlords millions of dollars to game the system without actually helping any unhoused people. Take that money and just house people directly.
IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9h1agr wrote
So you are or are not willing to rent to a known drug user?
How would you feel if they lived next door and brought their drug user friends over all the time?
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h28zk wrote
I'm not a landlord, and I never said anything about private landlords, not sure where you're getting that idea from.
And I would have no problem living next to a formerly homeless person. If they were causing problems with noise, damage to the building, etc., I would deal with that the same way I deal with any neighbor causing those problems.
DrunkWoodchuck t1_j9h7c3l wrote
But there is no way to deal with a judgement proof tenant next door. What are you going to do about them? “The same way I deal with other neighbors” is as vague as can be.
walkandtalkk t1_j9ic54p wrote
How would you deal with them?
glopmod t1_j9h5qs4 wrote
I am fairly sure the vast majority of people under 40 that have lived next door to me while living in DC were drug users, and the people they had over were as well.
​
I know because I have smoked or drank with them.
frappeyourmom t1_j9hlwry wrote
I live in Virginia and live next to drug users (I smell weed all the time) and I’m fine with it.
walkandtalkk t1_j9ickal wrote
That's fine, but most people aren't. And we're obviously not talking about potheads. I don't think we can consider it a solution to say, "Allow those with unmanaged, addiction-related psychosis to live independently in crowded neighborhoods."
You wrote elsewhere about residential harm-reduction programs. As far as I can tell, the big impediments there are cost and staffing, though I'm curious what such programs cost other cities per resident per year. $30,000? $100,000? You'll quickly run into a lot of opposition as they become unaffordable.
glopmod t1_j9h59lx wrote
I would confidently suggest that there is similar or higher percentages of drug use by those working on the hill and K St as those living in tents.
RockItGuyDC t1_j9hxun4 wrote
Yeah, but they wear nice clothes and their doctor prescribes their amphetamines and/or opioids, so it's all gravy.
celj1234 t1_j9gu7ln wrote
City paid crack houses? Who can’t get behind that idea?
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9gugnk wrote
Instead you want people to remain living in parks and sidewalks? Or what is your alternative?
IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9gza93 wrote
That people who want help can get free rehab and then housing.
People who don’t want help can’t be helped. Not everything has a solution
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h0km9 wrote
If your goal is to get people sober, housing is the most effective first step. That's not an opinion, that's a repeatedly demonstrated fact. It's not the only step, but it's the first step. This is a classic case of "would you rather solve the problem, or would you rather be right"?
IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9h142e wrote
I mean it’s not. Giving housing to people who are active drug users has consequences too.
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h1knx wrote
Yes, one of those consequences is that they're more likely to get sober than if they were on the street. Another is that it's likely to save the city money on emergency services. Yes, it has its own problems, it's not a silver bullet. But it's far more effective than what we're doing with that same money now.
kstinfo t1_j9hlrfm wrote
You seem to be of the impression that homeless/drug user are a given combination. It's almost axiomatic that homeless folk don't have any money. So, who's giving away free drugs? Inquiring minds want to know.
IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9hnvfp wrote
We are talking about people who have refused aid from the city which is often because they don’t want drug testing
glopmod t1_j9h54b6 wrote
A lower percentage of homeless have drug or alcohol issues than the percentage who have used this program.
​
Blue_5ive t1_j9h12n9 wrote
I’m not doubting you but do you have a source that housing + no rehab is effective?
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h4267 wrote
Oh I absolutely don't think it should be housing + no rehab. It's just housing first. Having people in a stable location makes it much easier to connect them with services like substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, job training & placement, etc.
Here's one study that looked into it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10737824/
Conclusion: "The program's housing retention rate over a five-year period challenges many widely held clinical assumptions about the relationship between the symptoms and the functional ability of an individual. Clients with severe psychiatric disabilities and addictions are capable of obtaining and maintaining independent housing when provided with the opportunity and necessary supports."
Here's another, this time with more mixed results:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448313/
"Participants in the Housing First program were able to obtain and maintain independent housing without compromising psychiatric or substance abuse symptoms."
People were more likely to remain stably housed with a housing first approach.
The most interesting highlight for me is that the housing first group had lower levels of engagement in substance abuse treatment, but basically the same levels of actual substance use. This shows that forcing people into substance abuse treatment in order to receive housing is ineffective.
glopmod t1_j9h4zt9 wrote
Did he state that?
Blue_5ive t1_j9h5i1q wrote
I took the linked and other comments as implying that housing was the better first step than rehab https://reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/118eh0l/_/j9gtr25/?context=1
I’m just looking for sources on the claims people make because this is a highly complicated issue. Any data or studies on it is interesting and people throwing out random facts in these threads should be able to back it up like op does.
celj1234 t1_j9gv27w wrote
I don’t have one. Homelessness will always exist for my lifetime in this city. But I deff don’t want my tax dollars going to fund crack house shelters.
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9gv8hi wrote
what if it cost fewer tax dollars to house people than it does to let people live on the street?
Also why do you think the problem is unsolvable when so many other major cities around the world don't have this problem?
[deleted] t1_j9gyj8z wrote
[deleted]
glopmod t1_j9h4wkx wrote
"I don't have solutions but the problem can't be solved and I don't want my money-"
​
It's not your money.
[deleted] t1_j9h41ev wrote
[removed]
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h46lk wrote
Ok, but we're going to be doing this again with another park in 6 months. I'm tired of this total waste of tax dollars.
FkDavidTyreeBot_2000 t1_j9hbzsu wrote
Tax dollars used to improve public safety, put 1/3 of that group in better and more sustainable conditions, allow access to public resources and pay district residents for their labor? Sounds like a four way success to me
DC makes it almost impossible to be involuntarily homeless (or at least to go without a roof over your head at little or no cost). Maybe this is callous of me but I don't have much tolerance for those who turn that down, pollute the city with drugs and needles, turn sidewalks into no-go zones and relieve themselves in public parks.
Feisty_Law_3321 t1_j9h4ned wrote
Agree, but park clearing must continue to be done, vigorously and relentlessly. If it’s not so easy for them to post up somewhere else, they will be more likely to accept help. I’m encouraged to hear that 33% of those at McPherson did accept, and hope the other 2/3 come around to not living on the streets of DC.
SnortingCoffee OP t1_j9h5nx1 wrote
>If it’s not so easy for them to post up somewhere else, they will be more likely to accept help.
Is there any evidence of this approach actually working anywhere? I've seen it suggested a lot--just make being homeless even more awful then no one will choose to do it--but I have yet to see any study show that it's an effective approach.
Feisty_Law_3321 t1_j9huio5 wrote
The evidence is in the 1/3 of people at McPherson who finally decided enough was enough.
Sluzhbenik t1_j9htwju wrote
It doesn’t get much worse than living in a tent in McPherson Square Park. I would say try a lot of different things. We can’t just let anyone post up anywhere, it makes the whole city more dangerous for everyone. And not to mention the economic impact. Your employer wants to drag employees back to in-person work in their McPherson Square office, as the Mayor wants? Surrounded by drug use and danger? No fucking way.
Mad-Dawg t1_j9hx6oh wrote
If the encampment hadn’t been cleared, the number of people in housing would likely be zero. You can’t count housing as the only measure of success here when there’s a stubbornly resistant group refusing help and an entire community’s well being to consider.
frappeyourmom t1_j9h9832 wrote
Agreed. There’s been reports that the money that’s supposed to be going towards housing the folx in the parks people on this sub are clutching their pearls about is actually being spent clearing them instead. Color any of us surprised.
Sluzhbenik t1_j9hu09m wrote
How much did it cost to clear the park?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments