I read a while ago that they solved homelessness in Finland with flats first (rather than last), but the report also mentioned how much else was done in support, etc. Not that I think the last comment was wrong - just that you can have these two entirely different approaches that both work, when done with the person and their needs in mind.
It sounds like what he’s talking about here are mainly people with substance abuse issues who spend time hanging out on the street. Yes absolutely these people need more than just a roof over their heads to recover, but it’s also been proven, through multiple implications of the housing-first model, that housing is an essential first step in that puzzle.
This picture is not the extent of homelessness though, and I’m certain that homelessness looks very different in the outer boroughs to how it does in City and Westminster. There are many people, including children, who will never spend any time on the street but will sleep on buses, on sofas, in overcrowded accommodation with inappropriate people, in increasing desperate circumstances and offering sex in exchange for a place to stay.
I know this article was just one person’s view but I find it incredibly offensive that the insinuation that appropriate housing is not the real problem and that most homeless people have somewhere to live they’re just not using it. Appropriate housing IS an issue and if Burnham wants to solve it he will have to work out how we make more housing available to the people who need it.
For what it’s worth I don’t believe in the first instance that this necessarily involves building more housing, but that councils should be given the cash to compulsory purchase flats (at below market rates) that are sitting empty (lots of that in these endless new builds) and properties that landlords fail to keep in good condition. This could make thousands of new dwellings available in much less time than it takes to plan and build more social housing (though I do think we should be doing that too!)
On the topic of scammers, crime is widespread in a number of different contexts and it pays off with limited to no consequences. The solution must be a fundamental change in the balance risk/rewards of criminal activities
I partially blame Margaret Thatcher for shutting the asylums and selling off social housing. Beggars/rough sleepers were relatively rare when I was a child. You occasionally saw the odd tramp but never rows of people on pavements.
Asylums were not really a solution though, they just kept the problem away from the eyes of the rest of us so it could be forgotten about. Many of those places were effectively brutal and dehumanising prisons for those with mental health issues
I read a while ago that they solved homelessness in Finland with flats first (rather than last), but the report also mentioned how much else was done in support, etc. Not that I think the last comment was wrong - just that you can have these two entirely different approaches that both work, when done with the person and their needs in mind.
Yes - and this is very much one individual’s lived experience.
Shelter did a really good and clear analysis of the 2020 intervention and how the challenge wasn’t getting people off the streets, it was providing them with a stable environment to keep them off the streets. Worth a read: https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/everyone_in_where_are_they_now
Bizarre take on homelessness.
It sounds like what he’s talking about here are mainly people with substance abuse issues who spend time hanging out on the street. Yes absolutely these people need more than just a roof over their heads to recover, but it’s also been proven, through multiple implications of the housing-first model, that housing is an essential first step in that puzzle.
This picture is not the extent of homelessness though, and I’m certain that homelessness looks very different in the outer boroughs to how it does in City and Westminster. There are many people, including children, who will never spend any time on the street but will sleep on buses, on sofas, in overcrowded accommodation with inappropriate people, in increasing desperate circumstances and offering sex in exchange for a place to stay.
I know this article was just one person’s view but I find it incredibly offensive that the insinuation that appropriate housing is not the real problem and that most homeless people have somewhere to live they’re just not using it. Appropriate housing IS an issue and if Burnham wants to solve it he will have to work out how we make more housing available to the people who need it.
For what it’s worth I don’t believe in the first instance that this necessarily involves building more housing, but that councils should be given the cash to compulsory purchase flats (at below market rates) that are sitting empty (lots of that in these endless new builds) and properties that landlords fail to keep in good condition. This could make thousands of new dwellings available in much less time than it takes to plan and build more social housing (though I do think we should be doing that too!)
Also, ACAB. This article just proves it.
On the topic of scammers, crime is widespread in a number of different contexts and it pays off with limited to no consequences. The solution must be a fundamental change in the balance risk/rewards of criminal activities
I partially blame Margaret Thatcher for shutting the asylums and selling off social housing. Beggars/rough sleepers were relatively rare when I was a child. You occasionally saw the odd tramp but never rows of people on pavements.
Asylums were not really a solution though, they just kept the problem away from the eyes of the rest of us so it could be forgotten about. Many of those places were effectively brutal and dehumanising prisons for those with mental health issues
"The issue is there, as yet, there are consequences for the people involved." Small typo
Quite an important one. No matter how many times you check, there's always one. Thank you.