Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHot25
No, this is not the case. A Housing First model - where they get a place to live first before dealing with any other issues (e.g. employment, addictions, health, mental health, etc etc) - is generally proving more effective.
Previously the general idea would have been "a person can't have/hold down a home until they are "stable enough"" - i.e. no house until they deal with their issues. Almost the opposite I believe is holding true - you take some with numerous issues going on (i.e. not stable), put them in housing, then provide supports to help them deal with their issues, and you generally get better results - i.e. people become more stable and keep their houses. At least that is what I understand.
|
Interesting.
Either way I guess it doesn't matter as long as the intention is that the person gets the house does so on the basis of becoming a tax-paying member of society.
I wish we had more outside the box stuff like that happening. If you take away the moral obligation to help those stuck in poverty, there is still the financial benefit of having these people get jobs, and hopefully begin supporting themselves.