Combatting Homelessness - Doing Everything Wrong?

For several years I ran the largest homeless shelter in New Hampshire - New Horizons for New Hampshire - which usually housed up to 120 people each night. Our shelter also included a soup kitchen and a community food pantry. Before that I was a resident at that shelter, having been homeless for three years after a very traumatic event. And from those experiences, and statistics I gathered, I believe I have a pretty fair idea as to what can and what cannot help combat homelessness effectively. But even so, this is still not a complete solution.

When a mayor like DeBlasio (or even a governor) tries to "solve" the problem by shipping the homeless to other states, the only problem he is solving is his own. And when other lawmakers like those in California try to solve the problem by putting millions of taxpayer funds into "low cost housing", they simply do not understand homelessness at all - they may as well throw all that money right into the dumpster for all the good it will do.

The first step is to determine, and then separate the usual "causes". You cannot cure something if you do not know what causes it. Here are some stats from my tenure running the shelter, for the major issues. Bear in mind that some suffered more than one causation. For example, an alcoholic might also have a mental issue. The following are the primary causes:

• Alcohol/drug addiction - 61%
• Mental impairment - 32%
• Just want a free ride and no obligations - 4%
• Temporarily dispossessed - 3% (often marital or family issues)

Each of the above would naturally require a different type of intervention. A one-size-fits-all solution such as increasing low-cost housing is both absurd and ignorant. Low cost housing or subsidies would only be helpful for the 3% dispossessed, with a smattering of the less hardcore addicts and those with only minor mental issues.

At New Horizons we had case workers during the day who would attempt to help the residents overcome whatever issues they had, and referred residents to medical or mental health professionals as needed. For those temporarily dispossed, they would assist is "smoothing" out the path forward - bus tickets to get back and forth to a job; finding temporary, low cost housing; finding jobs - whatever  was needed, including family counseling. For those who were simply avoiding responsibility (lazy) they were given 60 days to find and keep a job, and get a place of their own. Failure to do so would result in being denied further shelter services (except the soup kitchen).

About 1/3 of the addicted residents (drugs or alcohol) were beyond help. They were provided all the basic needs without any strings attached, usually until they died.

And those with severe mental impairments were also cared for with the basics - when a leftist Supreme Court ordered the closing of mental institutions nationwide, hundreds of thousands of seriously ill people were just put onto the streets, most without benefit of any follow-up or out-patient care. The best and most compassionate intervention for those people would be for the states to reopen facilities for such individuals. They cannot be be incarcerated by force, but they should still have access to a "home" under supervision where they can be cared for and provided with medical needs.

Homelessness, therefore, is not the problem. It is the result of some other, less obvious problem. Root out the core problem(s) for a homeless person and you greatly increase the chance of being able to help.

[Brought to you as a PSA by "The Simple Man's Guide top Real Estate Investing"]