This is great news. Homelessness is a 100% solvable problem, and this highlights just one method of how. There are more unused homes than homeless. The only reason we haven't ended homelessness...
This is great news. Homelessness is a 100% solvable problem, and this highlights just one method of how.
There are more unused homes than homeless. The only reason we haven't ended homelessness because it's less profitable to do so.
End landlordship, and the commodification of housing more broadly. Homelessness will be solved pretty quick, especially if paired with other basic things like 'free medical care'.
This sounds intriguing. About an hour or so south of Bakersfield, here in LA, we have an enormous population of the chronically unhoused. I wonder whether these techniques would be viable here or...
This sounds intriguing. About an hour or so south of Bakersfield, here in LA, we have an enormous population of the chronically unhoused. I wonder whether these techniques would be viable here or if they don't scale very well? I wonder if a divide and conquer strategy could make them viable? Like divide the city into n zones and apply these techniques to each zone individually?
The “by name” system is very intriguing to me. It’s fundamentally more expensive than a “by numbers” system, as the level of individual care is higher. It’s important to note, when people say...
The “by name” system is very intriguing to me. It’s fundamentally more expensive than a “by numbers” system, as the level of individual care is higher.
It’s important to note, when people say something isn’t scalable, they often mean it would be more expensive than the alternative. Should that really be the dealbreaker for social programs like this? Some might argue the outcomes are worth the costs.
I guess it depends where you live. I moved from Toronto to Montréal and the emphasis placed on protecting the homeless from COVID in Montréal was far greater than what I see in Toronto. People’s everyday attitudes towards homeless people are different here too. I think the thing that’s missing from making Bakersfield’s success scalable for other municipalities is the will of the voter.
This seems fundamentally unscalable, as many human issues are. Working within zones where small groups of social workers develop and maintain the described connections to the community seems like...
This seems fundamentally unscalable, as many human issues are. Working within zones where small groups of social workers develop and maintain the described connections to the community seems like the only possible solution. A lot of this exercise was about developing trust. Within the social worker's groups, with the homeless, with the potential landlords. You couldn't just scale the groups in size and maintain that personal connection.
This is great news. Homelessness is a 100% solvable problem, and this highlights just one method of how.
There are more unused homes than homeless. The only reason we haven't ended homelessness because it's less profitable to do so.
End landlordship, and the commodification of housing more broadly. Homelessness will be solved pretty quick, especially if paired with other basic things like 'free medical care'.
This sounds intriguing. About an hour or so south of Bakersfield, here in LA, we have an enormous population of the chronically unhoused. I wonder whether these techniques would be viable here or if they don't scale very well? I wonder if a divide and conquer strategy could make them viable? Like divide the city into n zones and apply these techniques to each zone individually?
The “by name” system is very intriguing to me. It’s fundamentally more expensive than a “by numbers” system, as the level of individual care is higher.
It’s important to note, when people say something isn’t scalable, they often mean it would be more expensive than the alternative. Should that really be the dealbreaker for social programs like this? Some might argue the outcomes are worth the costs.
I guess it depends where you live. I moved from Toronto to Montréal and the emphasis placed on protecting the homeless from COVID in Montréal was far greater than what I see in Toronto. People’s everyday attitudes towards homeless people are different here too. I think the thing that’s missing from making Bakersfield’s success scalable for other municipalities is the will of the voter.
This seems fundamentally unscalable, as many human issues are. Working within zones where small groups of social workers develop and maintain the described connections to the community seems like the only possible solution. A lot of this exercise was about developing trust. Within the social worker's groups, with the homeless, with the potential landlords. You couldn't just scale the groups in size and maintain that personal connection.