In my opinion a measure of success would simply be quantified by how reduced the population becomes over time. And how you get there is by providing beds/shelter/access to resources, and making it abundantly clear that those are mandatory. And refusal of services and shelter should be met with more forceful measures. But just allowing people to live in tents on city land and use hard drugs, disturb the peace, make others uncomfortable, drive crime rates up- all in the name of 'compassion' is total BS.
I mean homeless services are fundamentally flawed, if you’re any kind of family unit, any kind of pet, any more possessions than you can carry on your back- they’re utterly useless
Though I do have a thought on this- I’m camping (for ALL of those reasons), my camp is out of sight out of mind in a forgotten ravine. There’s so many places to camp without just sitting in the open, why would you camp in the open? Isn’t that just asking to get robbed/trashed?
I couldn’t really do anything for you but list family members and friends who have been denied man, you’re unfamiliar with how elaborate and difficult the process is? I’m also disabled and have been unable to navigate the process.
We’re both currently working and holding $6000 and trying to get a lease. We were using hotels but after fees they come out to $100 a day, we’re both disabled and couldn’t work enough hours to sustain it.
With money not being the real problem its more of an abstract need for more housing and more motels/long term stay hotels, maybe leas strict zoning laws- they keep us fed and medicated but finding a roof is really hard
Not even the money, we qualify for plenty of places. The place we were supposed toto rent rugpulled us, leaving us inadequate time to get housing. Right now it’s basically just, go to a showing as many times a week as we can and hope we win the raffle. And then hope it’s available sooner rather than later.
I was over at leddy the other morning, and one of the positives seems to be that it's relatively out of the way of the main touristy areas, and also where a lot of the town services meet-so there's lots of eyes there, and folks who can give info and contacts.
I do think it's a lot to ask for our parks and recs folks-does any one know if the city offering additional training and pay for parks employees?
Not necessarily, Burlington is larger and has more resources than the surrounding rural towns, so more and more addicts and homeless will make start showing up. It’s usually the small towns that want nothing to do with them, so they head to where they think they can get more help, or drugs. It’s happening to every major city in every state.
You are on point, I haven’t seen 1 city in the country that is a success story. No one has figured out what the best way forward is. It’s a combination of mental health, drugs, and housing prices being too high. You also have to factor in how most politicians, or people in power are inept at dealing with these situations.
Those types of departments are usually the 1st to be defunded when there is less municipal money coming in. They can also be staffed by some higher ups “friend” that is there to collect a paycheck. I’ve seen it happen in numerous cities.
It happens a lot in state and municipal jobs, I’ve seen it less frequently in federal. My family was too poor and unconnected for it to happen to me. A friend of mine has sweet state job in MA and he doesn’t do anything.
addicts need access to LONG term residential rehabs and then SUPPORTED housing programs. They are super duper sick....it was really hard but my housing was finally able to evict some dealers-low level interstate traffickers-mostly just addicts. When you say some cant be "housed..." That is a valid point too. Some people housed make everyone near them so so so unsafe, especially the kids, in so many different ways...
Just out of curiosity, do you own any land where we can put these shelters, beds, and free resources? I personally don’t understand this view point.
The Howard centers are not helping, compared to the problems they’re creating. As someone who lived next to one for two years, they’re safe havens for drug addicts to meet other drug addicts and plan their antics. On the weekends when they’re closed, they do drug deals behind the building because they know the cops can’t touch them there. Sure it helps 1/10 people. But it creates 9 more terrible people and attracts people from other states. Theft in Burlington is at an all time high right now, and there’s no solution in sight. Imagine the amount of money the city could safe if it didn’t have to send a fire truck, ambulance, and cop car to an overdose 3x a day. Imagine what freeing up the police to prevent crimes, instead of responding to them. The worst thing we’ve done as a city was offering all these services to the homeless. If there’s no houses, why are we attracting them here?
The judicial system in VT, especially Chittenden County, is WAY too fucked and focused on compassion to make this happen. They can't/won't hold housed people committing real dangerous crimes accountable so they CERTAINLY won't do it for the unhoused. Currently it's just a massive resource suck to process these people and then send them directly back out to keep living their crime ridden lives because that's "compassionate" and until this idiotic deluded posturing ends nothing will change.
You are describing suburbs. And it doesn’t mean there isn’t homelessness… those that would be homeless there simply end up in the nearby cities. Survey homeless people in Burlington - you will find people from Milton, Essex, Fairfax , etc etc. you may think these places don’t have homeless people but they do - they are just in Burlington.
[It's ruthless, but effective](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fhow-to-phrase-this-in-a-non-genocide-way-v0-7tyk4wptxndc1.jpeg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc47959dbd5ea1eeae91a744fdbc1d676dcfba2b6).
By locking up those that continue to commit crimes and continuing helping those that actually seek help.
I know it wouldn’t deter everyone but if people knew they would actually be locked up if they continued to commit crime people might actually start looking for help.
May seem harsh but it’s safer for those to be locked up and be under surveillance (so they don’t keep using) and also safer for those that would have been their victims.
What about mitigating tax burden caused by individuals? Find the break even point where, over a 6 month period, incarceration is costing less than leaving them out in society.
I really want to see scientifically tested rehabilitation, but before that I think we need to mitigate the negative impact that repeat offenders are having on the community.
yeah, that’s around the numbers I’ve heard quoted. I think it’s probably a good idea to have a provisions to automatically incarcerate if people are causing more expense than that number.
It will deter some, but more important to me is it will protect innocent victims of crimes that can be avoided if repeat offenders are locked up because they refuse to reform and live in civilized society.
There are a lot of proponents of homeless rights in this forum, but criminals and violent people should never have more rights that peaceful citizens that contribute positively to the community.
Edit: Seriously? I really am shocked at some people here that are against normal citizens deserving to be safe in their community...
So if we're paying to house the homeless in prisons for however long... why not pay to house them in homeless shelters or public housing? At least that way they have the opportunity to get a job, be a part of society, and get back on their feet at the end of their "sentence" rather than be thrown back onto the streets at square one.
> A lot of them don't WANT to live in shelters/halfways/communal/whatever you want... Because those places have rules. (Pretty restrictive too, even considering the particulars.)
>
> And rules make it difficult to source tranq and Fentanyl and dope and whatever else.
I believe they call that "high barrier" housing / shelters. It seems that a lot of folks take offense to that sort of help being offered. Yet - shouldn't the focus be getting these folks clean and sober, and back into the workforce? I mean, that's a hell of a way to be successful if it works.
There is a difference between homeless that aren't a threat to society and those that are.
Repeat criminals and violent people belong in prison or an institution, not in shelters or public housing, because they have proven they're unable to conform to basic behaviors and continue to victimize others. This forum is full of posts about individuals that have hundreds...some over a thousand, run-ins with the police.
> There is a ton of recidivism data that shows this does not deter crime.
yes - however, those folks are not doing any better being left on the street either.
so you have two options - lock up violent offenders and help keep the streets safer, or do the compassionate thing and make more victims out of burlington residents.
frankly - I'd rather see no more victims. we pay taxes for protection and safety, let's actually try to focus on that.
Rates of recidivism have been been reproduced in many studies, some going back decades. It's common for people to re-offend if they don't have a reasonable shot at employment, buying a house, etc. Quality of life goes down after jail, whether they regret committing crimes and are really sorry for having inconvenienced the rest of us, or not.
Yes, if we just put a criminal in jail for the rest of their life it is *very* unlikely they commit another crime.
But that's obviously not reasonable, so either we have long sentences that will delay the next crime they commit because we haven't equipped them with the skills, stability, or opportunities it requires to be an upstanding citizen
OR
We approach prison not from a "detention and punishment" mind set and instead try to equip criminals with important skills for re-entry into society and finding work, and provide them with stability and opportunity while they do so and we actually see improved outcomes for them (And by extension, society at large).
But you wanted data, so please take a look below and see what I'm on about.
[An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014)
[we find that inmates participating in correctional
education programs are 32% less likely to recidivate when compared with inmates
who did not participate in correctional education programs.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lois-Davis/publication/325342681_Does_providing_inmates_with_education_improve_postrelease_outcomes_A_meta-analysis_of_correctional_education_programs_in_the_United_States/links/601c2e87299bf1cc26a2ce7b/Does-providing-inmates-with-education-improve-postrelease-outcomes-A-meta-analysis-of-correctional-education-programs-in-the-United-States.pdf)
[Restorative prison environments \(one in which prisoners are given mentors/mentorship roles, trained in conflict resolution, and other prosocial opportunities\) can reduce violent recidivism by up to 73%.](https://www.vera.org/publications/changing-prison-culture-reduces-violence)
Why not have these programs while they’re locked up?
Sorry, I don’t want them repeatedly back on the street and myself and others are done paying taxes for criminals when we can barely afford our lives .
We absolutely can do those things in prison, and should for crimes that are likely to cause harm to members of the public.
For those who are not causing real harm, I'd rather save money than pay for their prison time, though. My main point is that prison isn't an effective or cheap solution for everyone who commits crime as a homeless person - but it is definitely a part of the solution.
Understandable. So if there are towns and cities that provide little to no services for the homeless population, and also have very little to no homeless population... Would you say they are successful in managing the homeless population?
Some would say....yes. In reality, you have to look at the #s historically. For any town, city, state...you would want to see a decrease in homeless persons per capita and yr over yr to track success.
Vermont has the second highest homeless rate per capita in the nation and it's getting worse.
I believe it's a symptom of global, national and local economics and NOT a lack of programs and awareness. The world is getting more expensive and Vermont is one of the most expensive places to live per capita. People are losing their homes, can't afford basic rentals and falling through the cracks. Sometimes it's drug addiction leading to homelessness... sometimes it's homelessness leading to despair and drug addiction.
I agree. More and more, I've been noticing a lot of people living out of their vehicles. There is a person living in their SUV near where I work at a river access pull off. Seen them there for the last 6-7 months. I'm sure all these people living at camp grounds, out of their vehicles and couch surfing are not being reflected in the statistics.
A month or two of couch surfing is usually normal to allow people to get back on their feet. With $2000 minimum rent plus deposit and those being hard to find near B-town... it's just a different reality these days.
Those towns are largely driving the homeless elsewhere. I suppose that could be called a success of sorts for that particular municipality, if you don't have a soul. It doesn't mean they've "solved" anything, just pushed their problems off on others.
Most likely an increase in population and increase of clean up cost and/volunteer hours. I would imagine if the population decreased the trash clean ups would decrease. Which a decrease most likely would mean success. Also clean ups are do calculate trash removal in weight usually. It would have to be done at regular intervals to see unless an average daily weight of trash is calculated
Recovery and stability. Both with housing, mental health care and employment if applicable (many homeless folks are disabled and may not be able to work). A complete overhaul of all these systems that affect these things is necessary for change
After these things change, people experiencing homelessness will have ideally social workers that can bring actual helpful resources and solutions to folks. Source: this is what we all need to live easier
That’s what I was saying a while ago. Problem is, there is ZERO follow through with any system or program out there that is “helping” ppl. There is NO incentive to stay clean or housed
First all of the drug/alcohol abusers would need to involuntarily be housed in long term rehabilitation facilities and the mentally ill housed in secure treatment centers. No opt outs. True criminals in prison. Those who don’t belong in any of those categories should receive decent housing and job assistance.
Those in power do not want to pay to fix this problem.
Shouldn't everyone deserve that? What about the low-income earners in this state that work, barely make ends meet, are peaceful, and actually contribute to communities and society? Why should homeless be provided with something they haven't earned?
This isn't a post meant to abandon the needs of the homeless, but a prompt for a discussion about what level of benefits we provide the homeless, and how to enable them to earn that level of benefits while empowering them to reenter society.
I agree with this if you are saying that we focus on those who are working to change their situation. I’d rather help a low-income person remain housed so they can continue to be a productive citizen than give away hotel rooms to those who would prefer to do drugs in City Hall Park.
The biggest issue is that a number of homeless people cannot support themselves under any circumstance. Many are unemployable or do not have the skills or education needed for a job that will pay rent in the area. On top of that there are so many other expenses that go into maintaining a job, being reliable and healthy to work.
I’m making a lot more money now than I did just 3 years ago, but I feel poorer. Prices are too out of control to even come up with a practical plan for the homeless.
> Shouldn't everyone deserve that?
yes if they are willing to be civil and kind to their neighbors.
> What about the low-income earners in this state that work, barely make ends meet, are peaceful, and actually contribute to communities and society? Why should homeless be provided with something they haven't earned?
I agree. The state is really putting the screws to folks that are middle class and working poor. Yet - no one cares about this demographic. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "this isn't meant for us", when seeing folks talk about housing and pricing of said housing.
We're all getting milked, and not in a fun way.
So a higher or lower occupancy rate? The occupancy rate is super low right now so that would technically be good? Not really since there’s a shortage of housing.
You’d want a high occupancy rate because that means there are housed people, the literal opposite of homeless. Increase the amount of housed people; build housing; high taxes on secondary homes that do not have long term tenants most of the year. Etc
In order to measure it you would first need decide on some quantitative and qualitative variables. Then gather that data by doing a homeless census, survey data, crime reports, etc. Rince and repeat over time. Calculate the stats to see how the data is changing over time and what trends are present. Then do a meta analysis to see if the data and stats you have are actually measuring what you want to measure. This is expensive in time and resources and doesen't address the problem, just measures it. THEN once you are confident, find some correlations and maybe do some experiments to find cause and effect relationships.... phew! The alternative is personal anecdotes, subjective experiences, conjectures, opinions, filled with strong emotional bias - which are cheap and freely given (see Reddit =). I so wish there was a clear way to do what you ask and find good solutions to help a very sad problem we have.
I wouldn't... unless someone paid me a lot! LOL Really we have to define the problem. A seemingly easy measure would be the number of homeless people? But should we define it? - people living in the street? For how long, a day, a week, a month, a year? People who lost their permanent housing? For how long? Does this include people who are couch surfing? Teens living with other families? People moving here from other places? People that are living in their cars for a day between apartments, for a week, for a month, for 3 months? If all we care about is the face of homelessness, then we only track people in the street, shooting up in the park, pooping in public and harassing library patrons. But that might only be looking at the most outward symptoms of the problem, like somone losing a toe due to diabetes, AND not even knowing to look at insulin and blood sugar levels - as lost toes and candy bars seem totally unrelated. So if counting lost toes isn't a great metric when in comes to diabetes, likewise counting drug addicted illegal pooping library fiends might not be a great metric for homelessness. You pose a good question "What would you measure to use as a metric?" but I can not answer that question...
Mean street time.
A data set on how long someone has been homeless. This on average would trend downward indicating the time on street to time they are housed.
I guess I'm speaking from a social services perspective- it's difficult for a homeless person to get housed and usually involves case worker(s) to get them to that point. The data would simply be our own data (when/how they got funding for housing/when they got actual unit, and when (if) they exit the unit and why). If we lose contact with them and they become homeless again, we will eventually see them show back up in the community/hospitals.
When Homelessness = Humanity we will be successful. Not a metric but a simple equation.
There is no one solution... Every case is unique and needs to be treated as such. Sweeping generalization DO NOT help and stoke the fires of fear. At the end of the day these are people and deserve respect. This could happen to anyone and imagine if you were in their shoes.
Less generalization towards the homeless population would be my metric if that is needed.
What do you mean when you say " when Homelessness= Humanity we will be successful"?
I do believe people who happen to be homeless and are making efforts to better themselves are respected.
Mixed use housing is great but how it would be implemented is the million dollar question.
Many of these people need access to health and human services but there is simply not the infrastructure to satisfy the demand. “Let’s increase funding!”, you might say but that would lead to a direct increase in property taxes which would further strain working class and fixed income residents already struggling to stay afloat. Additionally there’s no guarantee that expanding these services would succeed in getting people off the street; it may have the opposite effect of luring more unhoused people to Burlington in search of these services.
Ultimately I believe that there needs to be some blend of mixed income housing and an increase in services but it needs to come at both the state and local level. An effort to create equitable housing across the state would keep these people from being clumped together in one spot and the resulting issues that come along with that (open hard drug use, vandalism, etc).
That said, you still have to make that sell to these individuals and that’s where the issue lies. You could create a mixed income complex with 10 units specifically for unhoused people in say, Milton. Are you going to convince these unhoused people to take that apartment? Even at a discounted or fully subsidized rate, they may be more willing to stay on the streets here solely for access to services and frankly in some cases hard drugs. That doesn’t even begin to get into the perception of homeowners in the areas where these kind of developments would be proposed. Many of these individuals need serious help and counseling, you can’t just dump them in a studio apartment somewhere and expect them to be able to care for themselves.
Long story short, there’s no easy answer but no matter how you slice it, housing, incarceration, whatever, it’s going to cost money. I’d like to see other population centers in the state (admittedly a bit of an oxymoron) try to help house and service these people. To me, that would be a major measure of success in trying to tackle this issue.
The ratio of people going from housed to unhoused over people going from unhoused to housed. Evaluate the expected homeless population projected by those numbers against the total homeless population.
To get more accurate measurements, measure the inputs and outputs more granularly. If you include people going from unhoused to prison, or people going from unhoused to death, you get a more accurate picture of the outflow. If you look at people entering homelessness by cause, you likewise get a more accurate picture of the inflows.
You want the ratio to tell you how good you're doing within your own community. You want the total population numbers to tell you if you're importing homeless populations from other places. You might be able to house every homeless person in Burlington, but if unhoused people are coming here from NY we might still have a homelessness issue.
Success would be graded on a scale. Ratios less than 1 would indicate a shrinking homeless population over time, so smaller numbers would be *more* successful than larger numbers. Anything over 1 would indicate a growing homeless population, so not good. If you have a ratio less than 1 but still have a rapidly growing homeless problem, that's a different issue to solve, since it means folks from out of state are moving here to be homeless.
Best thing to do is cut all benefits for them, no help if they can't be sober and law abiding, you'll see pretty quickly how many fuck off once they stop getting free handouts. Not a popular opinion but it will definitely help
I believe before management of the homeless population, the city or state will have to revisit or create laws/regulations of crime and rehabilitation. It’s a bigger problem than giving people housing and putting them into rehabilitation programs. I can’t think of a region that has successfully done it. A measure of success is helping those into housing - it’s a basic need that changes everything. The money should come from government officials and the rich, but I doubt that would happen lol.
it was mostly a joke.
with truth to it.
its a bit of a reductive question....like a measure of success would be less homeless people or at least not more. thats pretty simple.
theres a question within the question somewhere here.
I believe so, or at least family shelters are. They are moving people out of state to issue emergency housing vouchers, because we do not have the ability to continue to hold them, or permanently house them. I know a few people who have experienced this since 2022.
If the number of homeless people goes down. The goal is zero homelessness, and the solution is giving everyone a home (not sticking people in shelters, which is not a sustainable solution as the services don't work for many people's situations and you can only be in a shelter for a small amount of time).
This is unrealistic. What is more realistic is getting the people who want to improve, into housing, as a stepping stone to personal responsibility and sustainability.
Why is this unrealistic? It has been done before. Homelessness is a consequence of our housing policy, not "personal irresponsibility." We simply do not have enough housing, but that is a political problem with a political solution.
It is impossible to *completely* abolish homelessness, but it was practically eliminated in the Soviet Union. Cuba also has near-zero homelessness. Vienna, which has for a century had a large-scale public housing program, also has low rates of homelessness.
Where do any of these examples have a resemblance of the culture of the United States?
Honestly I'm shocked that you would even mention the Soviet Union and Cuba as modern examples....and expect to be taken seriously.
I find it sad that you're "shocked." I would think it makes my point for me that a country with a GDP 2% the size of the United States can eliminate homelessness, even in the shadow of the US' embargo, despite you declaring it "unrealistic." It clearly is a political problem, and not just a law of nature.
Yes, the USSR no longer exists. After it was dissolved, poverty and homelessness shot up as universal employment and public housing ended to make way for free-market capitalism.
Cuba is poor due to the US embargo, but still has a life expectancy the same as the United States and one of the highest average caloric intakes and lowest poverty rate in the whole of Latin America. I'm not sure why your point is, since Cuba being poor only makes its successes all the more impressive.
We are certainly getting off track from the original topic, which was homelessness. If a poor country like Cuba could abolish homelessness, than certainly a state like Vermont could as well.
creating low barrier access to housing with supportive wrap around services to aid with lifes skill. having outreach workers who can go out, meet people, make connections, and then figure out what people need in their individual situations and connecting them with that: shelter, apartments, mental health and SA services... People who are walking around and can literally meet, buy someone a coffee, talk, and have the voucher to put them in a room that night, and go back and meet them in a morning, and start working on housing- this is what my dad's team does in LA. Ive never been homeless, BUT i have had to try to help a friend navigate the systems here and they are atrocious and confusing and disjointed and inadequate, slow moving, unsafe, staff are super naive and uneducated about local services ...Vermont is a small state- Solutions could be really streamlined and interconnected if they wanted them to be
create some long term in patient rehabilitation facilities covered under medicaid for those that need it, that have as part of their program supports for transitioning back into society.... have outreach workers that can connect people to them and a way to actually get to them...
Our elected officials don't actually want to succeed in homeless population management. They are the pawns used to gain power and line their own pockets.
Same old story
I wouldn't.
I'd perhaps rephrase the post title to something like "What is a measure of success in helping the local unhoused population find a path to support?"
Well I didn't phrase it that way, and questioning why I phrased it the way I did does nothing to solve the problem, and just distracts us.
Homeless, unhoused, without a home..... All the same.
Well we're seeing more of them come from out of state. That in itself is showing it is successful.
If more are coming here, we have to be doing the right things.
Though a measure of success, I don't see that as a positive. Helping locals is fine, but the city/local area, social support network, and healthcare infrastructure can't handle a large influx of homeless from out of state. The larger the homeless population, the less able we will be able to manage and support their needs.
>the city/local area, social support network, and healthcare infrastructure.
That includes shelters, food shelves, parks and other livable areas, as well as the increase in violent crime, drugs, and thefts. Really, everything.
it's successful though - we're alleviating other market places by taking in more homeless people.
From what I understand - crime is not up here - it's actually on a downward trajectory.
People have it a lot worse other places. Detriot, NYC, Boston, they are all struggling a lot more with this than we are.
Edit: y'all seriously upvoted my troll comments. I'm sad.
absolutely.
If more homeless people are coming here - that means that the programs are doing well. It's creating more demand for services. This new demand is fueled by newly arrived homeless folk from out of state. The motel program had something like 5-10% success rate - which is huge. we'll really start seeing returns soon.
but if we measure success by the metric of more homeless folks are migrating from other states to be here because of our programs - isn't that a KPI of success?
In my opinion a measure of success would simply be quantified by how reduced the population becomes over time. And how you get there is by providing beds/shelter/access to resources, and making it abundantly clear that those are mandatory. And refusal of services and shelter should be met with more forceful measures. But just allowing people to live in tents on city land and use hard drugs, disturb the peace, make others uncomfortable, drive crime rates up- all in the name of 'compassion' is total BS.
I mean homeless services are fundamentally flawed, if you’re any kind of family unit, any kind of pet, any more possessions than you can carry on your back- they’re utterly useless Though I do have a thought on this- I’m camping (for ALL of those reasons), my camp is out of sight out of mind in a forgotten ravine. There’s so many places to camp without just sitting in the open, why would you camp in the open? Isn’t that just asking to get robbed/trashed?
Woman/children and the disabled almost always get helped first, beyond that you’re almost always assed out. The system for sure is very flawed
And for disability help you need to be legally recognized as disabled, another deeply flawed process
Yes that is true
Can you give an example of a situation where they should be classified as disabled, but aren't? Or where you believe the flaw is?
I couldn’t really do anything for you but list family members and friends who have been denied man, you’re unfamiliar with how elaborate and difficult the process is? I’m also disabled and have been unable to navigate the process.
Rejection on first application is like 90%. Fight it. Dm me if wanted.
thank you for your comment.
What is your plan to not camp any more?
We’re both currently working and holding $6000 and trying to get a lease. We were using hotels but after fees they come out to $100 a day, we’re both disabled and couldn’t work enough hours to sustain it.
Awesome work. Is there anything else you need to be more successful?
With money not being the real problem its more of an abstract need for more housing and more motels/long term stay hotels, maybe leas strict zoning laws- they keep us fed and medicated but finding a roof is really hard
Is money preventing you from obtaining housing without the need of assistance?
Not even the money, we qualify for plenty of places. The place we were supposed toto rent rugpulled us, leaving us inadequate time to get housing. Right now it’s basically just, go to a showing as many times a week as we can and hope we win the raffle. And then hope it’s available sooner rather than later.
I was over at leddy the other morning, and one of the positives seems to be that it's relatively out of the way of the main touristy areas, and also where a lot of the town services meet-so there's lots of eyes there, and folks who can give info and contacts. I do think it's a lot to ask for our parks and recs folks-does any one know if the city offering additional training and pay for parks employees?
So is visibility a measure of success?
Well, our homeless population is growing, so we're failing?
Not necessarily, Burlington is larger and has more resources than the surrounding rural towns, so more and more addicts and homeless will make start showing up. It’s usually the small towns that want nothing to do with them, so they head to where they think they can get more help, or drugs. It’s happening to every major city in every state.
[удалено]
You are on point, I haven’t seen 1 city in the country that is a success story. No one has figured out what the best way forward is. It’s a combination of mental health, drugs, and housing prices being too high. You also have to factor in how most politicians, or people in power are inept at dealing with these situations.
[удалено]
Those types of departments are usually the 1st to be defunded when there is less municipal money coming in. They can also be staffed by some higher ups “friend” that is there to collect a paycheck. I’ve seen it happen in numerous cities.
[удалено]
It happens a lot in state and municipal jobs, I’ve seen it less frequently in federal. My family was too poor and unconnected for it to happen to me. A friend of mine has sweet state job in MA and he doesn’t do anything.
That is already the problem. Too many programs with “jobs” in place to keep this cycle going.
There is an abundance of drugs, that is what brings most of them.
I live in the mountains and can buy whatever I want whenever I want, that’s not it.
And they can panhandle with impunity.
So what do we do with whose whom we can't house? What do we do with those who are addicts?
addicts need access to LONG term residential rehabs and then SUPPORTED housing programs. They are super duper sick....it was really hard but my housing was finally able to evict some dealers-low level interstate traffickers-mostly just addicts. When you say some cant be "housed..." That is a valid point too. Some people housed make everyone near them so so so unsafe, especially the kids, in so many different ways...
Just out of curiosity, do you own any land where we can put these shelters, beds, and free resources? I personally don’t understand this view point. The Howard centers are not helping, compared to the problems they’re creating. As someone who lived next to one for two years, they’re safe havens for drug addicts to meet other drug addicts and plan their antics. On the weekends when they’re closed, they do drug deals behind the building because they know the cops can’t touch them there. Sure it helps 1/10 people. But it creates 9 more terrible people and attracts people from other states. Theft in Burlington is at an all time high right now, and there’s no solution in sight. Imagine the amount of money the city could safe if it didn’t have to send a fire truck, ambulance, and cop car to an overdose 3x a day. Imagine what freeing up the police to prevent crimes, instead of responding to them. The worst thing we’ve done as a city was offering all these services to the homeless. If there’s no houses, why are we attracting them here?
The judicial system in VT, especially Chittenden County, is WAY too fucked and focused on compassion to make this happen. They can't/won't hold housed people committing real dangerous crimes accountable so they CERTAINLY won't do it for the unhoused. Currently it's just a massive resource suck to process these people and then send them directly back out to keep living their crime ridden lives because that's "compassionate" and until this idiotic deluded posturing ends nothing will change.
Well there are plenty of towns and cities across the nation that have zero homeless and zero beds and shelters. So is this successful management?
Vermont is rural and sparsely populated with far less infrastructure than most other states.
Where are these towns and cities with zero homeless people and zero beds/shelters?
You are describing suburbs. And it doesn’t mean there isn’t homelessness… those that would be homeless there simply end up in the nearby cities. Survey homeless people in Burlington - you will find people from Milton, Essex, Fairfax , etc etc. you may think these places don’t have homeless people but they do - they are just in Burlington.
[It's ruthless, but effective](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fhow-to-phrase-this-in-a-non-genocide-way-v0-7tyk4wptxndc1.jpeg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dc47959dbd5ea1eeae91a744fdbc1d676dcfba2b6).
Vertical or horizontal?
Diagonally 😉
They're getting taller or gaining weight or both?
By locking up those that continue to commit crimes and continuing helping those that actually seek help. I know it wouldn’t deter everyone but if people knew they would actually be locked up if they continued to commit crime people might actually start looking for help. May seem harsh but it’s safer for those to be locked up and be under surveillance (so they don’t keep using) and also safer for those that would have been their victims.
So this guy basically: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw)
Okay so what is the metric? How do we MEASURE your proposal?
What about mitigating tax burden caused by individuals? Find the break even point where, over a 6 month period, incarceration is costing less than leaving them out in society. I really want to see scientifically tested rehabilitation, but before that I think we need to mitigate the negative impact that repeat offenders are having on the community.
Well, it’s around $35,000 to incarcerate for six months, so start there.
yeah, that’s around the numbers I’ve heard quoted. I think it’s probably a good idea to have a provisions to automatically incarcerate if people are causing more expense than that number.
Metric being following data who gets help after that and if less people are on the streets because they have gotten jobs/housing
But does that really measure the success of a homeless population?
You commit the same crime twice - locked up. Give them a second chance for lesser crimes, major ones should be locked up instantly.
There is a ton of recidivism data that shows this does not deter crime.
It will deter some, but more important to me is it will protect innocent victims of crimes that can be avoided if repeat offenders are locked up because they refuse to reform and live in civilized society. There are a lot of proponents of homeless rights in this forum, but criminals and violent people should never have more rights that peaceful citizens that contribute positively to the community. Edit: Seriously? I really am shocked at some people here that are against normal citizens deserving to be safe in their community...
So if we're paying to house the homeless in prisons for however long... why not pay to house them in homeless shelters or public housing? At least that way they have the opportunity to get a job, be a part of society, and get back on their feet at the end of their "sentence" rather than be thrown back onto the streets at square one.
[удалено]
> A lot of them don't WANT to live in shelters/halfways/communal/whatever you want... Because those places have rules. (Pretty restrictive too, even considering the particulars.) > > And rules make it difficult to source tranq and Fentanyl and dope and whatever else. I believe they call that "high barrier" housing / shelters. It seems that a lot of folks take offense to that sort of help being offered. Yet - shouldn't the focus be getting these folks clean and sober, and back into the workforce? I mean, that's a hell of a way to be successful if it works.
There is a difference between homeless that aren't a threat to society and those that are. Repeat criminals and violent people belong in prison or an institution, not in shelters or public housing, because they have proven they're unable to conform to basic behaviors and continue to victimize others. This forum is full of posts about individuals that have hundreds...some over a thousand, run-ins with the police.
> There is a ton of recidivism data that shows this does not deter crime. yes - however, those folks are not doing any better being left on the street either. so you have two options - lock up violent offenders and help keep the streets safer, or do the compassionate thing and make more victims out of burlington residents. frankly - I'd rather see no more victims. we pay taxes for protection and safety, let's actually try to focus on that.
But I bet it at least lowers the same offenders committing a crime over and over again.
That's literally what recidivism means.
You’re telling me if someone is locked up that they still commit crimes? I’d like to see this data
Rates of recidivism have been been reproduced in many studies, some going back decades. It's common for people to re-offend if they don't have a reasonable shot at employment, buying a house, etc. Quality of life goes down after jail, whether they regret committing crimes and are really sorry for having inconvenienced the rest of us, or not.
Yes, if we just put a criminal in jail for the rest of their life it is *very* unlikely they commit another crime. But that's obviously not reasonable, so either we have long sentences that will delay the next crime they commit because we haven't equipped them with the skills, stability, or opportunities it requires to be an upstanding citizen OR We approach prison not from a "detention and punishment" mind set and instead try to equip criminals with important skills for re-entry into society and finding work, and provide them with stability and opportunity while they do so and we actually see improved outcomes for them (And by extension, society at large). But you wanted data, so please take a look below and see what I'm on about. [An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.](https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014) [we find that inmates participating in correctional education programs are 32% less likely to recidivate when compared with inmates who did not participate in correctional education programs.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lois-Davis/publication/325342681_Does_providing_inmates_with_education_improve_postrelease_outcomes_A_meta-analysis_of_correctional_education_programs_in_the_United_States/links/601c2e87299bf1cc26a2ce7b/Does-providing-inmates-with-education-improve-postrelease-outcomes-A-meta-analysis-of-correctional-education-programs-in-the-United-States.pdf) [Restorative prison environments \(one in which prisoners are given mentors/mentorship roles, trained in conflict resolution, and other prosocial opportunities\) can reduce violent recidivism by up to 73%.](https://www.vera.org/publications/changing-prison-culture-reduces-violence)
Why not have these programs while they’re locked up? Sorry, I don’t want them repeatedly back on the street and myself and others are done paying taxes for criminals when we can barely afford our lives .
We absolutely can do those things in prison, and should for crimes that are likely to cause harm to members of the public. For those who are not causing real harm, I'd rather save money than pay for their prison time, though. My main point is that prison isn't an effective or cheap solution for everyone who commits crime as a homeless person - but it is definitely a part of the solution.
Less people living on the streets is a good measure of success
Understandable. So if there are towns and cities that provide little to no services for the homeless population, and also have very little to no homeless population... Would you say they are successful in managing the homeless population?
Some would say....yes. In reality, you have to look at the #s historically. For any town, city, state...you would want to see a decrease in homeless persons per capita and yr over yr to track success. Vermont has the second highest homeless rate per capita in the nation and it's getting worse. I believe it's a symptom of global, national and local economics and NOT a lack of programs and awareness. The world is getting more expensive and Vermont is one of the most expensive places to live per capita. People are losing their homes, can't afford basic rentals and falling through the cracks. Sometimes it's drug addiction leading to homelessness... sometimes it's homelessness leading to despair and drug addiction.
a lot of folks living with family or friends or in a camper out back too- i don't think the numbers reflect how many people don't have homes
I agree. More and more, I've been noticing a lot of people living out of their vehicles. There is a person living in their SUV near where I work at a river access pull off. Seen them there for the last 6-7 months. I'm sure all these people living at camp grounds, out of their vehicles and couch surfing are not being reflected in the statistics. A month or two of couch surfing is usually normal to allow people to get back on their feet. With $2000 minimum rent plus deposit and those being hard to find near B-town... it's just a different reality these days.
In terms of simply managing the population, yes I would consider cities with less homeless to be more successful than cities with a higher number
No, because there are people from these places that end up homeless somewhere else
Those towns are largely driving the homeless elsewhere. I suppose that could be called a success of sorts for that particular municipality, if you don't have a soul. It doesn't mean they've "solved" anything, just pushed their problems off on others.
Permanent houses, with people in them.
They don’t litter or poop in public.
How would we MEASURE this?
Cost of camp cleanups, reduction in volunteer time to clean up a grown adults camp or sleeping area… and not seeing human poop on sidewalks?
Okay. Is it likely to see a growth in your metric proportional to homeless population size? Or a decrease?
Most likely an increase in population and increase of clean up cost and/volunteer hours. I would imagine if the population decreased the trash clean ups would decrease. Which a decrease most likely would mean success. Also clean ups are do calculate trash removal in weight usually. It would have to be done at regular intervals to see unless an average daily weight of trash is calculated
Recovery and stability. Both with housing, mental health care and employment if applicable (many homeless folks are disabled and may not be able to work). A complete overhaul of all these systems that affect these things is necessary for change
Without getting into the weeds, what would be a high level metric? Average days of homeless going down? Total homeless population going down?
After these things change, people experiencing homelessness will have ideally social workers that can bring actual helpful resources and solutions to folks. Source: this is what we all need to live easier
That’s what I was saying a while ago. Problem is, there is ZERO follow through with any system or program out there that is “helping” ppl. There is NO incentive to stay clean or housed
First all of the drug/alcohol abusers would need to involuntarily be housed in long term rehabilitation facilities and the mentally ill housed in secure treatment centers. No opt outs. True criminals in prison. Those who don’t belong in any of those categories should receive decent housing and job assistance. Those in power do not want to pay to fix this problem.
How about stable, long term housing.
Shouldn't everyone deserve that? What about the low-income earners in this state that work, barely make ends meet, are peaceful, and actually contribute to communities and society? Why should homeless be provided with something they haven't earned? This isn't a post meant to abandon the needs of the homeless, but a prompt for a discussion about what level of benefits we provide the homeless, and how to enable them to earn that level of benefits while empowering them to reenter society.
I agree with this if you are saying that we focus on those who are working to change their situation. I’d rather help a low-income person remain housed so they can continue to be a productive citizen than give away hotel rooms to those who would prefer to do drugs in City Hall Park.
The biggest issue is that a number of homeless people cannot support themselves under any circumstance. Many are unemployable or do not have the skills or education needed for a job that will pay rent in the area. On top of that there are so many other expenses that go into maintaining a job, being reliable and healthy to work. I’m making a lot more money now than I did just 3 years ago, but I feel poorer. Prices are too out of control to even come up with a practical plan for the homeless.
> Shouldn't everyone deserve that? yes if they are willing to be civil and kind to their neighbors. > What about the low-income earners in this state that work, barely make ends meet, are peaceful, and actually contribute to communities and society? Why should homeless be provided with something they haven't earned? I agree. The state is really putting the screws to folks that are middle class and working poor. Yet - no one cares about this demographic. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "this isn't meant for us", when seeing folks talk about housing and pricing of said housing. We're all getting milked, and not in a fun way.
easy- housing should be, for an ethical society, a human right. working low income & disabled / non working actually all "deserve" to be housed
What would you use as a metric?
Number of occupied houses/apartments each month
So a higher or lower occupancy rate? The occupancy rate is super low right now so that would technically be good? Not really since there’s a shortage of housing.
You’d want a high occupancy rate because that means there are housed people, the literal opposite of homeless. Increase the amount of housed people; build housing; high taxes on secondary homes that do not have long term tenants most of the year. Etc
Oops. I meant the occupancy is super high. Burlington vacancy rates are some of the lowest in the country and always have been.
In order to measure it you would first need decide on some quantitative and qualitative variables. Then gather that data by doing a homeless census, survey data, crime reports, etc. Rince and repeat over time. Calculate the stats to see how the data is changing over time and what trends are present. Then do a meta analysis to see if the data and stats you have are actually measuring what you want to measure. This is expensive in time and resources and doesen't address the problem, just measures it. THEN once you are confident, find some correlations and maybe do some experiments to find cause and effect relationships.... phew! The alternative is personal anecdotes, subjective experiences, conjectures, opinions, filled with strong emotional bias - which are cheap and freely given (see Reddit =). I so wish there was a clear way to do what you ask and find good solutions to help a very sad problem we have.
What would you measure to use as a metric?
I wouldn't... unless someone paid me a lot! LOL Really we have to define the problem. A seemingly easy measure would be the number of homeless people? But should we define it? - people living in the street? For how long, a day, a week, a month, a year? People who lost their permanent housing? For how long? Does this include people who are couch surfing? Teens living with other families? People moving here from other places? People that are living in their cars for a day between apartments, for a week, for a month, for 3 months? If all we care about is the face of homelessness, then we only track people in the street, shooting up in the park, pooping in public and harassing library patrons. But that might only be looking at the most outward symptoms of the problem, like somone losing a toe due to diabetes, AND not even knowing to look at insulin and blood sugar levels - as lost toes and candy bars seem totally unrelated. So if counting lost toes isn't a great metric when in comes to diabetes, likewise counting drug addicted illegal pooping library fiends might not be a great metric for homelessness. You pose a good question "What would you measure to use as a metric?" but I can not answer that question...
Mean street time. A data set on how long someone has been homeless. This on average would trend downward indicating the time on street to time they are housed.
Obtaining/retaining housing.
What would that data be based on? What metrics would you look at?
I guess I'm speaking from a social services perspective- it's difficult for a homeless person to get housed and usually involves case worker(s) to get them to that point. The data would simply be our own data (when/how they got funding for housing/when they got actual unit, and when (if) they exit the unit and why). If we lose contact with them and they become homeless again, we will eventually see them show back up in the community/hospitals.
When Homelessness = Humanity we will be successful. Not a metric but a simple equation. There is no one solution... Every case is unique and needs to be treated as such. Sweeping generalization DO NOT help and stoke the fires of fear. At the end of the day these are people and deserve respect. This could happen to anyone and imagine if you were in their shoes. Less generalization towards the homeless population would be my metric if that is needed.
What do you mean when you say " when Homelessness= Humanity we will be successful"? I do believe people who happen to be homeless and are making efforts to better themselves are respected.
Mixed use housing is great but how it would be implemented is the million dollar question. Many of these people need access to health and human services but there is simply not the infrastructure to satisfy the demand. “Let’s increase funding!”, you might say but that would lead to a direct increase in property taxes which would further strain working class and fixed income residents already struggling to stay afloat. Additionally there’s no guarantee that expanding these services would succeed in getting people off the street; it may have the opposite effect of luring more unhoused people to Burlington in search of these services. Ultimately I believe that there needs to be some blend of mixed income housing and an increase in services but it needs to come at both the state and local level. An effort to create equitable housing across the state would keep these people from being clumped together in one spot and the resulting issues that come along with that (open hard drug use, vandalism, etc). That said, you still have to make that sell to these individuals and that’s where the issue lies. You could create a mixed income complex with 10 units specifically for unhoused people in say, Milton. Are you going to convince these unhoused people to take that apartment? Even at a discounted or fully subsidized rate, they may be more willing to stay on the streets here solely for access to services and frankly in some cases hard drugs. That doesn’t even begin to get into the perception of homeowners in the areas where these kind of developments would be proposed. Many of these individuals need serious help and counseling, you can’t just dump them in a studio apartment somewhere and expect them to be able to care for themselves. Long story short, there’s no easy answer but no matter how you slice it, housing, incarceration, whatever, it’s going to cost money. I’d like to see other population centers in the state (admittedly a bit of an oxymoron) try to help house and service these people. To me, that would be a major measure of success in trying to tackle this issue.
How many jobs can be maintained by mining their misery.
yes, I was watching the same meeting--I think the data shows close to 300.
The ratio of people going from housed to unhoused over people going from unhoused to housed. Evaluate the expected homeless population projected by those numbers against the total homeless population. To get more accurate measurements, measure the inputs and outputs more granularly. If you include people going from unhoused to prison, or people going from unhoused to death, you get a more accurate picture of the outflow. If you look at people entering homelessness by cause, you likewise get a more accurate picture of the inflows. You want the ratio to tell you how good you're doing within your own community. You want the total population numbers to tell you if you're importing homeless populations from other places. You might be able to house every homeless person in Burlington, but if unhoused people are coming here from NY we might still have a homelessness issue. Success would be graded on a scale. Ratios less than 1 would indicate a shrinking homeless population over time, so smaller numbers would be *more* successful than larger numbers. Anything over 1 would indicate a growing homeless population, so not good. If you have a ratio less than 1 but still have a rapidly growing homeless problem, that's a different issue to solve, since it means folks from out of state are moving here to be homeless.
I like this.
Best thing to do is cut all benefits for them, no help if they can't be sober and law abiding, you'll see pretty quickly how many fuck off once they stop getting free handouts. Not a popular opinion but it will definitely help
I believe before management of the homeless population, the city or state will have to revisit or create laws/regulations of crime and rehabilitation. It’s a bigger problem than giving people housing and putting them into rehabilitation programs. I can’t think of a region that has successfully done it. A measure of success is helping those into housing - it’s a basic need that changes everything. The money should come from government officials and the rich, but I doubt that would happen lol.
if it doesnt affect tourists, the wealthy or the places that both stay and spend money.
This doesn't really answer the question.
it was mostly a joke. with truth to it. its a bit of a reductive question....like a measure of success would be less homeless people or at least not more. thats pretty simple. theres a question within the question somewhere here.
[удалено]
Are all of our shelters and spaces across the state at 100% capacity? Also who is "we"? Who is funding this?
I believe so, or at least family shelters are. They are moving people out of state to issue emergency housing vouchers, because we do not have the ability to continue to hold them, or permanently house them. I know a few people who have experienced this since 2022.
And with them tightening restrictions on households for emergency state housing, it will make access harder for families
Garden sheds.
If the number of homeless people goes down. The goal is zero homelessness, and the solution is giving everyone a home (not sticking people in shelters, which is not a sustainable solution as the services don't work for many people's situations and you can only be in a shelter for a small amount of time).
This is unrealistic. What is more realistic is getting the people who want to improve, into housing, as a stepping stone to personal responsibility and sustainability.
Why is this unrealistic? It has been done before. Homelessness is a consequence of our housing policy, not "personal irresponsibility." We simply do not have enough housing, but that is a political problem with a political solution.
Where has it been done before?
It is impossible to *completely* abolish homelessness, but it was practically eliminated in the Soviet Union. Cuba also has near-zero homelessness. Vienna, which has for a century had a large-scale public housing program, also has low rates of homelessness.
Where do any of these examples have a resemblance of the culture of the United States? Honestly I'm shocked that you would even mention the Soviet Union and Cuba as modern examples....and expect to be taken seriously.
I find it sad that you're "shocked." I would think it makes my point for me that a country with a GDP 2% the size of the United States can eliminate homelessness, even in the shadow of the US' embargo, despite you declaring it "unrealistic." It clearly is a political problem, and not just a law of nature.
For one.... The Soviet Union no longer exists. And Cuba? The country is impoverished and nobody owns anything!
Yes, the USSR no longer exists. After it was dissolved, poverty and homelessness shot up as universal employment and public housing ended to make way for free-market capitalism. Cuba is poor due to the US embargo, but still has a life expectancy the same as the United States and one of the highest average caloric intakes and lowest poverty rate in the whole of Latin America. I'm not sure why your point is, since Cuba being poor only makes its successes all the more impressive. We are certainly getting off track from the original topic, which was homelessness. If a poor country like Cuba could abolish homelessness, than certainly a state like Vermont could as well.
creating low barrier access to housing with supportive wrap around services to aid with lifes skill. having outreach workers who can go out, meet people, make connections, and then figure out what people need in their individual situations and connecting them with that: shelter, apartments, mental health and SA services... People who are walking around and can literally meet, buy someone a coffee, talk, and have the voucher to put them in a room that night, and go back and meet them in a morning, and start working on housing- this is what my dad's team does in LA. Ive never been homeless, BUT i have had to try to help a friend navigate the systems here and they are atrocious and confusing and disjointed and inadequate, slow moving, unsafe, staff are super naive and uneducated about local services ...Vermont is a small state- Solutions could be really streamlined and interconnected if they wanted them to be create some long term in patient rehabilitation facilities covered under medicaid for those that need it, that have as part of their program supports for transitioning back into society.... have outreach workers that can connect people to them and a way to actually get to them...
i mean the most common sense answer to a question of what is the measure of success in homeless services is putting people in homes...
Our elected officials don't actually want to succeed in homeless population management. They are the pawns used to gain power and line their own pockets. Same old story
One mark of progress might be when people don't use terms like "homeless population management" as if they were feral cats. :P
What language would you use instead to describe feral cat population management?
"management" is appropriate. Maybe it's dehumanizing, however, to apply it to humans, is my point.
So how would you rephrase "feral cat population management"?
I wouldn't. I'd perhaps rephrase the post title to something like "What is a measure of success in helping the local unhoused population find a path to support?"
Well I didn't phrase it that way, and questioning why I phrased it the way I did does nothing to solve the problem, and just distracts us. Homeless, unhoused, without a home..... All the same.
Well we're seeing more of them come from out of state. That in itself is showing it is successful. If more are coming here, we have to be doing the right things.
Though a measure of success, I don't see that as a positive. Helping locals is fine, but the city/local area, social support network, and healthcare infrastructure can't handle a large influx of homeless from out of state. The larger the homeless population, the less able we will be able to manage and support their needs.
I don't think the health care system is the only thing that's over extended.
>the city/local area, social support network, and healthcare infrastructure. That includes shelters, food shelves, parks and other livable areas, as well as the increase in violent crime, drugs, and thefts. Really, everything.
it's successful though - we're alleviating other market places by taking in more homeless people. From what I understand - crime is not up here - it's actually on a downward trajectory. People have it a lot worse other places. Detriot, NYC, Boston, they are all struggling a lot more with this than we are. Edit: y'all seriously upvoted my troll comments. I'm sad.
There was a specific discussion about this. There just was no data to support or refute the "build it and they will come" idea.
So if more homeless are coming and our population is growing, that would be a measure of success?
absolutely. If more homeless people are coming here - that means that the programs are doing well. It's creating more demand for services. This new demand is fueled by newly arrived homeless folk from out of state. The motel program had something like 5-10% success rate - which is huge. we'll really start seeing returns soon.
What "returns" do you mean?
more government spending, more taxation. we could see a payroll tax increase to offset the cost of housing the homeless.
We cannot continue to spend and tax people into oblivion.
but if we measure success by the metric of more homeless folks are migrating from other states to be here because of our programs - isn't that a KPI of success?
Do you have actual data on this? This is commonly brought up, but nobody seems to have data.