That's absolutely what this is. Hence why homeless and mental health advocacy groups are protesting this measure.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
KQED: Should San Francisco Force People With Mental Illness Into Treatment?
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
Housing in itself isn't a solution, but there's a reason why the "housing first" model is the golden rule to tending to the many barriers that homeless populations face. The solution should be to provide housing first, and then tend to whatever mental health or substance abuse issues there are.
Mental Health is subjective, it's cultural. It would be immoral to force anyone who isn't a direct threat to others.
I 100% agree. There's never a real plan to help them, it's just so people don't have to see them anymore.
One of the reasons why I'm saying no is that having done work with a homeless organization that specifically works with individuals struggling with mental illness, the issue isn't about getting them treatment, is getting them long term support in order to provide them steps to being able to continue to progress with proper resources even after they've received treatment.
Often times, people expect that the solution for the homeless population who struggle with mental illness or addiction is just to get them treatment, and give them a few bucks, then send them on their way. Sometimes, they think that just because they give them a job too, then that's all they need to do, and just expect them to complete their progress after that. However, the biggest concern lies in the lack of a social support system for those after the initial treatments that people just want to assume that if you've been helped, that means the rest will naturally come to that person.
Homeless organizations are already struggling to continuously be properly funded in order to figure out ways to provide long term social support to the population, rather than just something in the short term. The issue isn't that people aren't reaching out, but that people tend to let go too soon after.
It's never been about reaching out, it's about finding ways to help maintain those initial steps taken, and provide guidelines for a more long-term approach that includes supportive systems that lasts longer than just a few weeks, or at most a few months.
During my work there, often times we would discuss the stigma behind the issues involving homeless people who refuse help. There's a reason that there is massive refusal many times from those who are struggling with mental illness or dependence. The issue is the aforementioned discussion, and that there really is not a stable long-term supportive system that is in place for this population, and many of these people who are homeless and mentally ill or struggle with addiction know that it would just be a short term solution, and after awhile, they'd just fall back into their same place since those who helped them in the beginning will no longer be able to continue their support since there just isn't enough resources there that can be provided to them. It's not that many of them don't realize that they need help, but it's the fact that they realize it's really just a band-aid on what is a lifelong disease for many of them, and it's pointless in many cases in accepting support knowing that it's just temporary, and not intended to actually provide them the necessary resources to continue long after.
One of the biggest issues that the homeless population have to struggle with is more so in the idea of being seen. This has been brought up in a lot of other threads, and it will certainly be a focal point of this topic as well. But it's not about being seen, but about being recognized as a person. Short term solutions are inherently a way of ignoring the larger issue at hand, and to be perfectly honest, speaking with many from this population, they more than recognize, and already know of this. This is why that in accepting these approaches, it's already a means of insulting many of those in the population, and implying to them that they are the problem, rather than they are struggling with problems.
I just feel that many of these perspectives of people just straight up saying, yes, are clearly coming from a perspective of, well, they're going to bother me, so just get them help. But who is this really supposed to be helping? Feels more like it's helping those who just want to not deal with this population for the time being, and not a long-term solution in supporting the population. Getting them off the streets is not the same as getting them into homes. Temporary housing are not homes, they are places to stash this invisible population until the resources run dry, then they either go back into those same neighborhoods, or try to find another place as the cycle begins to repeat itself.
I'm no saying that those who said yes, or just feel this is the correct approach are terrible people, or to even imply you are jerks. But I do implore all of you who do hold this perspective to try and broaden your understand of exactly what it means when we're taking a look at this issue at a deeper level. While this approach may possibly be coming from a good place, it is also coming from a place of ignorance, and ill informed perspectives as to exactly how widespread the actual issue is beyond just getting them off the streets. It's about the inability of long-term support, care, and social systems that prevent any actual supportive measures to be helpful, and unless we start funding those systems to provide for the longer-term, just providing enough funding to lend them an initial hand, isn't going to be to the benefit of anybody involved in these issues.
Please try to do your best to empathize, rather than sympathize with this matter. I'm not saying you should feel bad for them, but you should feel angry that there just isn't enough of a long-term support for this population, and that should be the priority here first. Until we actually have this support system in place, I feel it's unfair to just shell out criticism for this particular population, and saying that they're just refusing to do it, when there's so much more nuance to the reasons why they've made such a decision. Just remember, what makes us feel better in the short-term, makes them feel terrible in the long-term. We have to do better.
Well there are still a lot I could discuss here, I feel this is probably plenty for now, so let me know if you want me to clarify anything here, or just discuss something further.
It really is heartbreaking. We have the capability to help, but not the will to do it. Too many would rather lock them out of sight based on the perceived threat.
Oh I think they should have someone to go back to, whether it be family or a government supplied home, but I don't agree on the idea that it should be first step for individuals with severe mental illness or drug addiction. You're not going to be able to get them into a home and keep them there without first treating them intensively in a highly monitored environment(if their condition can even be treated). Housing is great, but I don't think it makes sense as the first step to treat people with those level of issues. Even then there are many that need daily monitoring and care, even with medication.
My knowledge of mental illness is sorely lacking. I just figured getting some of the people who are effected the worst by it might be difficult to get them to stay in one place for long. So some form of treatment first, then introducing them to their new home, and continued treatment would work.
The problem is there is NO housing for even those who willingly find help. If you help them but then have nothing for them to turn to the program is set up to fail. SF doesn't even have any SROs left. There is literally nothing for them
this what we currently do and I can tell you it doesn't work. you need to stabilize their socioeconomic situation and give them a reason to comply with treatment long term. Otherwise they're just bouncing between healthcare facilities and back in the streets
If that were the case, they would be hoping it helps more than 50 to 100 people. As described, on first consideration this sounds stupid from any angle to me. Regardless of the ethical angle, why are they spending considerable effort on a bill that they hope will only help 50-100 people? Yes, I know, every bit helps and every life is valid, but the same planning and effort could have gone into a plan that would scale well.
OP
OP
A mentally ill homeless man lit his clothes on fire outside my office. What should we do to help this man if he doesn't want to help himself? My friend was chased by a homeless man with a needle screaming "Who wants some AIDS?". Do we just ask nicely?
Well if you give them housing they would stay in one place. Homeless people move around a lot because...they are homeless.
As someone who has worked with homeless populations quite extensively, I can assure you that the solution isn't violating their rights. Forcing someone into treatment, without any type of long term housing, supportive services, and treatment plans thereafter is going to just be temporary, immoral, and a waste of money.
As a black man, I can only think about how this can be used for evil.
The programs should be well fund, easy accessible, and have advocates trained to instruct the community on them. But taking away their rights and loading on them on a bus? That is some dystopian shit
The programs should be well fund, easy accessible, and have advocates trained to instruct the community on them. But taking away their rights and loading on them on a bus? That is some dystopian shit
I mean the laws already exist to temporarily house someone in mental facilities if they are presenting a danger to themselves or others (such as chasing people with needles and attempting to give them AIDS). That's not what this is, this is an expansion of powers beyond that.
People have already told you that a housing first approach is the way to go.
Lived in SF for 13 years. Cousin is a cop here whose job is mostly rangling homeless people. I've been homeless here before and support the CoH. This she isn't simple and I have a lot of stories to tell but my wifi is out today and mobile posting sucks.
Short response is that nimby zoning is choking my favorite city on earth to death.
Short response is that nimby zoning is choking my favorite city on earth to death.
This doesn't do anything like that though. This forces people to seek treatment without the long term support afterward.
There is a reason many advocacy groups are against this and housing first is seen as the best option.
Yep, this is the answer. Unfortunately it's never going to happen. As demonstrated every time public housing is proposed, the people will be against it like 80-20 and nothing will get done. The homeless have no political power and most people simply don't care about their well being, just removing them from their sight.
I think that you can convince people it's necessary. Maybe I'm being naive though.
User Banned (1 week): inflammatory generalization
Maybe. But I dont see why major issues shouldnt be corrected. And if the person has no means or faculties to do so, then it should be addressed by the state. Just like the ASPCA goes around neutering street cats, we should do the same for people. Give them psychological treatment, shelter, vaccines, medicine, etc.
I didnt mean neuter people. I meant how they go around in a van picking up strays. We should do the same for the homeless and attend to their needs.
I think most of us are in agreement here, just that some of us believe that every good policy should be instituted simultaneously
Jesus christ, what is wrong with you. Re-read what you wrote again and think about how you just compared stray animals to homeless people.
This policy does NOTHING to help them because it's not creating any kind of support network. Zero. None.
? Round up the homeless, give them what they need. Medicine, therapy, shelter, etc and make them suitable society.
I think you should start with the people that have the type of disorders that make them think locking innocent people up against their will is okay.
No, we're saying this isn't the first step. First step is fixing the housing problem for people whom actually need it. Not some 20 year old who just got a 350K compensation package.
Your phrasing of the situation is terrible and you're talking about them as if they're lower than you
We're going through this in NYC now and...it was just disgusting watching it all.
Homeless shelter
And this is one of the most progressive cities in the country. People are too afraid of the homeless unfortunately.
Ok now you made it way worse. Yes, let's have the homeless people equivalent to animal control ride around in vans and kidnap homeless people off the street, sounds like a great idea. Are you even listening to yourself? These are human beings with lives and autonomy. You can provide services and housing without treating them like animals.
I swear we're so close to having broken window level shit happening again.
Maybe. But my phrasing is irrelevant. It changes nothing
How the fuck do you kidnap someone who lives on the street? And even if it is kidnapping its to their and everyone else benefit for a multitude of reasons. They desperately need help and the rest of society needs more contributing brain and manpower. You cant just have people living in the streets or under bridges, etc. They need to be cared for and assisted and made ready for society.
They are literally protesting a new shelter being built near me. Its terrible
The republicans did try that for the last mayoral campaign and got blown out thankfully. Still, fear is a tool that they'll continue trying to use. If this shelter gets approved, the minute there is a crime in the area, the republicans will be all over that.
These shelters never seem to get completed though. Every proposed area has insane backlash.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the "solution" is to look the other way. You know, the same thing that worked so well for homelessness in general. And for illegal immigration. I mean, it's not as though looking the other way in those areas has left a bunch of people vulnerable to the actions of the current administration or anything. Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened.
You can't be serious...do you even know what kidnapping is? It's abducting someone against their will. Yes, homeless people can be kidnapped.
Yes they need to be provided services, that means giving them housing and accessibility to mental health treatment and addiction recovery. Not rounding them up in vans and throwing them in psychiatric wards.
As someone living in SF who observes the homeless population on a daily basis when walking around the city, there are most definitely homeless people that are incredibly violent, a danger to those around them, and aren't capable of making their own decisions. I'd be MUCH more in favor of having these individuals sent to an institution as opposed to waiting for them to commit an assault of some sort and get sent off to jail where their life is going to get even more fucked up.
There are cases where I think this could be effective, I'd of course be worried about the potential to abuse it though.
There are cases where I think this could be effective, I'd of course be worried about the potential to abuse it though.
Institutionalization didn't work. This is just the redux.
I did mental health case management, and many of the people I worked with experienced homelessness. Infringing on liberty is an incredibly serious thing. And ought only be done in acute, time-limited crisis.
It's amazing to me the lengths that people will go to do anything to not build tons more housing and pay enough taxes to fully fund an actual community mental health system with enough ACT teams, crisis response, and other supportive services. Services which are voluntary but assertive.
I did mental health case management, and many of the people I worked with experienced homelessness. Infringing on liberty is an incredibly serious thing. And ought only be done in acute, time-limited crisis.
It's amazing to me the lengths that people will go to do anything to not build tons more housing and pay enough taxes to fully fund an actual community mental health system with enough ACT teams, crisis response, and other supportive services. Services which are voluntary but assertive.
Just FYI, SF does spend about $300 million annually on homelessness prevention and assistance services, with the bulk of that going directly to paying for housing for the homeless, formerly homeless, and those in danger of becoming homeless (evicted for lack of payment).
Every single person who has said they are opposed to this in this thread has offered better alternatives. This measure is essentially 'looking the other way', it's not going to help people.