Beginning the in the 1990s the field of research on homelessness has been experiencing a paradigm shift. Whereas homelessness used to be seen as a societal and even cultural issue, today the idea of it being a clinical issue has taken over. Clinical of course implies that the effectiveness of treatment is tied to the place of treatment. While I do not disagree with this, it is a big leap to go from that to the catch- phrases that are prevalent in so many policy discussions today such as “homelessness is a housing issue” or “we know what works- housing first”
Were these phrases intended to withstand scrutiny, housing would never have replaced clinical in the first phrase, and the second would read something like, “we know what works, for some, while leaving the rest out in the cold”, but these phrases are in fact not intended to withstand scrutiny, rather they are ploys on the psychology of crowds, for which researchers have known for centuries that crowds can only hold simple concepts, and while crowds may care whether an idea contradicts itself, they care little for factual correctness.
The scientific method these research-based policy reports are attempting to emulate is composed of two parts; 1) creative connections, and 2) rigorous scrutiny of these connections. Without this second component what results is more like creative writing not research. Real research is inherently open ended in the sense that both the next goal and the methods to achieve it evolve in tandem with our understanding. Understanding is the real goal of research.
But the federal government has targets, not questions. They arbitrarily state what the target is then bully local agencies into compliance with their use of funding.
whereas our focus used to be on alleviating the suffering of all of those who are already homeless, today many agencies are being pressured into literally scoring people on how helpless they are before throwing all their resources at a select few, some of whom have yet to actually become homeless.
The problem with prevention strategies and entertaining pipe dreams of ‘solving’ harmlessness by weaning people onto private housing are two-fold;
And neither of these will improve so long as we persist with the false notion that homelessness is a housing issue, a notion which has caused us to ignore potentially relevant social and cultural factors of causation. Homelessness is a clinical issue, not a private housing issue. This does not mean we should jump straight to granting everyone their very own private unit, especially if it needs to come at the expense of the majority.
I have posted a detailed review of a guiding federal research-based policy report on each of you councilmembers Facebook.
Decriminalizing homelessness is the more pressing issue, and it is the more realistic goal.
Were these phrases intended to withstand scrutiny, housing would never have replaced clinical in the first phrase, and the second would read something like, “we know what works, for some, while leaving the rest out in the cold”, but these phrases are in fact not intended to withstand scrutiny, rather they are ploys on the psychology of crowds, for which researchers have known for centuries that crowds can only hold simple concepts, and while crowds may care whether an idea contradicts itself, they care little for factual correctness.
The scientific method these research-based policy reports are attempting to emulate is composed of two parts; 1) creative connections, and 2) rigorous scrutiny of these connections. Without this second component what results is more like creative writing not research. Real research is inherently open ended in the sense that both the next goal and the methods to achieve it evolve in tandem with our understanding. Understanding is the real goal of research.
But the federal government has targets, not questions. They arbitrarily state what the target is then bully local agencies into compliance with their use of funding.
whereas our focus used to be on alleviating the suffering of all of those who are already homeless, today many agencies are being pressured into literally scoring people on how helpless they are before throwing all their resources at a select few, some of whom have yet to actually become homeless.
The problem with prevention strategies and entertaining pipe dreams of ‘solving’ harmlessness by weaning people onto private housing are two-fold;
- We cannot afford to give everyone their very own private unit. The literature is clear on this; the methods we’ve adopted – they are not even supposed to work for everyone.
- We cannot predict who is going to become homeless. The literature is also clear on this as well.
And neither of these will improve so long as we persist with the false notion that homelessness is a housing issue, a notion which has caused us to ignore potentially relevant social and cultural factors of causation. Homelessness is a clinical issue, not a private housing issue. This does not mean we should jump straight to granting everyone their very own private unit, especially if it needs to come at the expense of the majority.
I have posted a detailed review of a guiding federal research-based policy report on each of you councilmembers Facebook.
Decriminalizing homelessness is the more pressing issue, and it is the more realistic goal.