For those saying no, what should be done instead?
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.