Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9gza93 wrote

Reply to comment by SnortingCoffee in Two-thirds of McPherson Square homeless remain on street, D.C. says by SnortingCoffee

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

12

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"?

20

IndependentYoung3027 t1_j9h142e wrote

I mean it’s not. Giving housing to people who are active drug users has consequences too.

12

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.

13

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.

1

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

6

Blue_5ive t1_j9h12n9 wrote

I’m not doubting you but do you have a source that housing + no rehab is effective?

3

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.

12

glopmod t1_j9h4zt9 wrote

Did he state that?

0

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.

1