Kind of valid. In Portland "housing first" has been all the rage, but having lived with pretty severe addiction for some years, and spent lots of time around fellow addicts in considerably worse circumstances, it's pretty hard to imagine that a house on its own is some kind of solution. Especially when compared to a support network and high quality addiction treatment, medical care, and mental health services. In terms of sustainable recovery, the former is a luxury, while some combo of the latter are essential requirements. Of course, having all of them is by far the best.. man, addiction is a bitch.
"Housing first" isn't the belief that providing a house "on its own is some kind of solution". It's the belief and practice of not refusing to provide housing support until people meet certain criteria – which is often how governments approach the problem.
"We only help those who help themselves", etc.
You get people a safe place to sleep and then provide them with resources to become re-integrated into society, not the other way around.
How? Why? It seems like a reasonable question to me, so maybe I'm prejudiced too. That's entirely possible. What's the prejudice? How do I stop? Why is this a bad question? Does it have an answer?
InSteady|2 years ago
etchalon|2 years ago
"We only help those who help themselves", etc.
You get people a safe place to sleep and then provide them with resources to become re-integrated into society, not the other way around.
notfed|2 years ago
[deleted]
recursive|2 years ago