Many of the successful homeless programs are "housing first" programs. Search for "colorado homes first program" to read more about it. In many cases it's also the cheapest way to do it as well. If you want to organize a group of currently homeless people to do some task, you have to coordinate travel, pick them up, have a van or a truck, hire a coordinator to plan the events and oversee them, and then at then on top of it pay for housing. It's actually cheaper just to provide housing.
Anyway, just wanted to say the issue goes deeper than "why won't these lazybones work".
I did not say "lazy guys won't work".
I said a lot of people would love to work for their benefits. I have been in this situation and hated. And I know a lot of pride people, that would not take free money.
I have not said this is a solution to everything.
I said, this would be a good thing and additionally should be put in the Constitution ("right to work").
I think there should be multiple social programs and people should be able to choose ones.
Programs that are performing best should get more funds, the ones that are the worst should be removed.
I don't know the details but friends effected mentioned:
* Being required to attend an office full time where they were monitored job searching and required to do soft skills courses, which they perceived as not useful.
* After an extended period of joblessness, being required to work for free (while recieving normal out of work benefit), for instance at a supermarket
This was critisised because:
* 'Jobless' people working for 1/4 the minimum wage displaced normal workers
* The programme encouraged people to make a high volume of inappropriate job applications. These make it harder for employers to sift candidates who actually want a job (I notice - do you want 100 angry highschool dropouts applying for your developer roles?), and reduce time and energy available to chase real leads.
* People who landed interviews for real jobs risked catastrophic penalties if they attended the interview, because the bureaucracy often failed to accept that this is what they were doing.
You could argue that this was a badly executed programme. Or that it was more focused on reducing public spending by discouraging people using their social insurance than on rehabilitating anyone. Or you could argue that aspects were good and got a bad rap.
For me, I think the nanny state can be terrifying, and that that no workplace needs people who'd rather be at home.
I said working for public good - not supermarkets etc. Working in public spaces for community benefit. That is a huge difference. Why should someone on benefits work for a private business or even public offices? That is ridiculous! They are receiving public help, they should help the public.
There is absolutely no place for the nanny state. Try not to look at things black/white.
The situation is so bad(both in terms of crime, and total population) that our state legislators are non-ironically talking about calling the national guard. To clear out camps where violence is becoming a problem.
They already totally cut to the ground the shrubbery near one major camp because there were multiple assaults and a rape using those bushes as cover.
The extra local issue - national homelessness - ended up suffocating the resources made to solve a much smaller program.
So the solution seems to be to scale up this system in other cities and distribute the load.
Again, assuming that people make a genuine effort to do this, as opposed to deciding "lets put a homeless housing center in the middle of nowhere. We can then say that homeless don't work while discrediting the idea and earning political points with my base"
What does one do about people who want to abuse drugs, and will not move into housing with a no-drug use clause attached? I recently helped a guy move out of his free housing because dope was more important to him than a roof over his head. Cleaned out his whole appt, and moved dropped him off a block from the camps I mentioned above.
I help feed this guy most weeks, and when he's sober he's really cool, but he's consciously choosing dope over a better life. I can't really force him into treatment, nor do I really think it would help unless he wanted them.
Sadly that would be "socialism" so it's not politically popular... damned legacy of the red scare.
All of the things you listed are geared towards improving the looks and desirability of communities, which will not work to benefit the people receiving the benefits in the current US housing system because of gentrification. Forcing poor people to work to receive the equivalent of less-than-minimum-wage in benefits to drive gentrification and real estate speculation will price those people out of housing in their own neighborhoods and make their plight worse.
This is not hyperbole or hypothetical, it actually happens today in many places in the United States. There was an article in the Guardian yesterday about homeless people in Portland being jailed and then forced to work for $1 a day to destroy the homeless camps that they had lived in:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/09/portland-hom...
You wouldn't have to do it, you just wouldn't get full payment unless you did.
What does that solve, what purpose does it serve?