Canada

There are countries and jurisdictions all over the world that have removed the need to participate in social programs in order to qualify for social housing. This is called “Housing First”. You know what happened in those places? Homelessness diminished significantly.

Yes, Housing First models offer a good framework, but there are some caveats and considerations with each implementation of them. There isn't a one-size-fits-all approach with Housing First models, and it doesn't always give positive outcomes.

You still need to have other support for Housing First to work, and when those needs aren't addressed, it doesn't actually work all that well.

In Ottawa, a Housing First approach showed some benefit and some detriment to the participants. In that study, people with substance abuse who were given housing and care had worse outcomes than the comparison group of homeless people with problematic substance abuse who were receiving standard care. The Housing First group suffered more mental health, lower overall quality of life, worse relations with their family, and greater chance of "problematic drug use". Despite that, they self-reported higher levels of satisfaction with living conditions after a year, but not more than the comparison group at year two. (SOURCE)

You claim there are people who would be uncooperative if they were given a home, and frankly I don’t believe you.

Then I suggest doing volunteer outreach work in your community so you can see it first hand.

"Care avoidance", as it's called, is real. There are multiple factors involved, and don't always relate to a person being stubborn or unwilling, so a different approach is often needed to get the best outcome.

If someone is given bare minimum accommodations with no strings attached, they will take it because the alternative is sleeping in the streets.

Not every homeless person finds "sleeping in the streets" to be the worst of their problems, though. An addict may not even care, or have some other concern/reason not to take up your offer.

But there are absolutely people who jump at the opportunity to truly get off the streets and enroll in programs to make that happen - permanently.

Your friend who prefers the bohemian lifestyle doesn’t count. We’re talking about people who aren’t able to access housing due to economic or societal reasons, not people who simply choose not to access housing.

He lost everything in a divorce. I explained that. It was not his choice. He only chose how he wanted to proceed with what was dealt to him.

If someone is homeless and also an alcoholic, one of those problems has a very straightforward solution. It would be basically impossible for them to deal with their alcoholism while also homeless. Personally, I’d say someone still deserves a roof over their head even if they struggle with an illness like alcoholism.

Of course, a shelter, or program that offers shelter until someone gets back on their feet are the best options.

Simply giving an addict a place to live, without addressing their addiction, isn't providing solutions.

For example, giving a homeless person food is more important than giving them a home with no food. Wouldn't you agree?

Programs that provide guidance and support for being an independent adult again, are critical for success.

We absolutely need to stop making access to housing contingent on participation in other social programs.

Without participation, what's the point? Are you looking to set up a welfare state where we simply house broken people without helping them, or one that empowers people to pick themselves off and live a meaningful life?

We have different viewpoints, but I'm sure we both want the same outcomes.