Giving housing to the homeless is a good way to address homelessness.
Finland has had substantial success with the Housing First model:
Finland has had substantial success with the Housing First model:
Housing First does not work for the mentally ill, drug addicted, or other causes of homelessness
Neither one of this is what most people think of when it is stated "drug addicted and mentally ill"
alcoholism and suicide are strongly correlated with depression, a mental illness for sure but we as a society has largely separated depression off on to a separate category as it is wide (and over) diagnosed condition
Similarly alcoholism while a drug is often referred to as alcoholism not drug addiction
So in the context of Homelessness in the US mental illness would be referencing things like BiPolar Disorder,schefrania, and other more pronounced and outwardly presenting disorders. Drug Addiction would be Heroin, Crack, etc.
All of which present anti-social and often violent manifestations far different than depression
It works. It solves their homelessness then there are other measures for other problems. And not all drug addicted or mentally ill people are homeless.
It simply does not work as universal idea. People need to feel safe in their homes.
This claim seems a bit far-fetched - "non-economically homeless" probably would be simpler to help with their underlying issues if they didn't live on the streets.
Do you have anything to back your claim up?
Sure, but they need treatment facilities, not an apartment.
Housing First policies is not creating a Mental Health Center to treat people with serious conditions. It is either building standard new housing that is gifted to the homeless, or finding existing housing to provide. Which for the economically homeless there are already many many government programs to provide that the problem is they all have HUGE waitlists as there is a housing shortage.
This is why the economically homeless in the US is the most temporary, and many of the economically homeless are simply waiting for a unit to open up on one of the many government programs that provide housing units.
Putting a severely drug addicted or mentally ill person in such housing will not only do a disservice to them as they are still not getting help, and they likely will not stay in the unit anyway. It places the other residents in danger as well
And what do you mean by non-homogeneous? It is not like all Finnish people is the same, they are not clones.
92% of the population of Finland are ethnically homogeneous. That manifests as shared values, goals, and choices.
You won't have that in the United States by breaking her up into 72 countries.
Frankly, such a suggestion is foolish on its face.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
Small sample. Small country. Far different social and governmental norms. It might not translate here. But it's not going to hurt to try either. Our options, sadly, seem to be limited.
You said "Different people, values, principles, ethics, concerns; all of which echo in life choices"
Isn't crime mostly connected to economic situations? Doesn't Finland have more social services than the US. Doesn't UBI help people who might otherwise turn to crime
If someone is raped and has to live with that mental scar is that a loss?
You're assuming taxes on income are the only way to lose money. We all pay for the effects of crime. We pay for the police, we pay higher health insurance for others injuries, etc
Considering Finland is the highest ranked country for happiness, has a low crime rate, social nets, and universal health care I think copying them is a smart move even to try it.
The main problem is the traitor evangelicals who wield power here while they use the government for money and contributing little the economy. They're are filth that we need to clean up first before we can improve this country
You didn't answer the question.
The majority decided that paying higher taxes is worth the benefits.
Why did they decide that and why do they trust the receipts of those benefits to use them appropriately?
Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of human history and culture is ethnocentric. It should not be a surprise that the ethnic values, ethics, and ways of living continue to be the dominant force in an area that has remained the same demographically for centuries.
That's not to say the culture, values, and ethics are inextricably bound to the ethnicity, but it is without a doubt a vehicle for sustainment and major factor in policy success or failure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish-speaking_population_...
If anything, Finland is a lesson in how a disparate group of people in the poorest corner of Europe can come together, say "Looks like we're a country now, how do we want to do this thing?" and succeed.
It's one of the most ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries on the planet at >90% Finnish.
I said it is the primary vehicle by which they are transmitted for all of human history, which is a fact.
Where did Nazi culture and values come from?
Perhaps I read this wrong, what is a vehicle for whether a policy is successful or a failure?
EDIT: I just realized what you meant. Ethical values are transmitted through culture but whether they are followed isn't.
The degree of homogeneity of culture, values, and ethics are a major factor in policy success or failure.
Therefore, an ethnically homogeneous area is much more likely to have homogeneous culture, values, and ethics and policies that reflect those things.
Sometimes, that homogeneity entails characteristics that lead to a generous, happy, high trust, flourishing society, like Finland. Sometimes it leads to Nazi Germany.
So given that and the fact that there are other factors that could effect trust, happiness, and success doesn't that basically tell you it isn't a meaningful factoe?
I don't believe it is. We can give a counter example of Salt Lake City, Utah which this npr report claims to have reduced homelessness substantially with the same model. I admit that they do have a different philosophy but maybe the west coast philosophies on homelessness aren't really working out. Utah is culturally different but maybe not so different that they can't learn from them.
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
All the west has similar demographics (age, gender, ...) . So, what do you mean by this?