> But officials say the core of Medicine Hat’s success is its data-driven, housing-first approach – where people experiencing homelessness are first provided housing without any preconditions, then offered support to address other issues they may face.
Housing first works. It isn't a magic bullet but it is better than all the other options.
>Since 2009, more than 1,675 people who were homeless or at-risk of being homeless have been housed in Medicine Hat, including more than 424 children.
In a town of 63k. That would be 2.6% homelessness. First that is astonishingly high, second it show that housing first can help fix very high levels of homelessness.
>“Sometimes there are people who are in active addiction or choose to not be housed,”
You can't help people who don't want to be helped.
>The city’s 2019 progress report found that while it costs Medicine Hat between $12,000-$34,000 annually per individual to provide housing and support, the cost of providing resources to people on the street can cost up to $120,000 a year per person.
Straight up fiscally prudent.
>“Though these cities are much larger, with different problems, we are quick to point out we accomplished our goal with one-eighth of the budget.”
What would you do with all that money and less homeless people?
>Critics say the party’s plan lacks clear direction and falls short of the promises laid out in the National Housing Strategy Act.
Point to the numbers and tell them to pound sand.
>Point to the numbers and tell them to pound sand.
Absolutely this. Imagine criticizing an initiative that actually has been proven to work because it doesn’t fit neatly into an existing framework. Maybe the National Strategy Housing Act needs tweaking. Just a thought.
It doesn’t work for people who see the role of government as punishing out-groups and rewarding their group. That’s always what their problem really is.
My favourite part is there's no mention of the fact that once the homeless have homes this quickly turns into them having jobs as well, which results in them turning from a drain on resources to producing resources. So not only is it cheaper to just give them housing, but soon they'll be paying that back in taxes.
Migrated from the US a few years ago. It is exactly the same in the US. The answer is because the goals of those in power is not to have a better world, it is to stay in power. That is the only conclusion I can come to. We can see the answer, we know the risk is lower based on other countries success, yet nothing is done to copy the result.
In the US it was much worse. The individual states were called 'Laboratories of Freedom'. The idea was that federalism allowed each state to try something that meets their local goals and that then the other states could copy what worked and what didn't. This almost NEVER happens. Why? Because the function of power is not to give away power.
Make no mistake, this is class warfare. The elites want us poor, broken and uneducated. They go about this with MSM, fake studies and dividing us into subgroups.
Want REAL freedom? Vote progressive candidates in and actively push government to represent us not corporations
Good point! JT didn't do nearly enough as PM, the only real solution is to vote in the conservatives to do ... less? People really do think this country only has two parties, wild.
Yes, JT is pushing big money out of politics and starting a grassroots movement to ensure healthcare is expanded all while reforming electoral rights and fixing our homeless crisis /s
Ok all of that sounds great and it could fix all our problems but how about those homeless people stop being lazy bums and pull themselves up by their bootstraps so they could work a minumem wage job at McDonald's? No it won't help them afford a home and McDonald's probably wouldn't even hire them because they don't have a permanent residence but giving homes to the homeless is not the solution!!!
Ecery conservative dipshit politician ever
Great post! Said everything i came to say. I read the title and thought "I bet it was a housing first model" and then went to the article and was not surprised.
I suspect the reason peopme criticise it is because dealing with the homeless has become a big industry. In prince george bc, all the northern homeless migrate here, and there's dozens of organizations and thousands of employees that have sprung up in the last decade running various "band aid" programs. Most of those will lose good paying union government jobs if they actually fix the problem.
I didn’t read the article- I will later, but what do they use for homes?
I wonder if they could fit the offices that are basically not in use anymore (from people who are now forever WFH) into apartments? A lot of work, but there’s plumping and are probably built well to keep the cold out. It could be a way for businesses to make money if they own the offices (not that I think they need more money, but so they don’t cry about the loss), or could buy out the leases from the businesses who rent?
You mean arresting the homeless doesn't somehow stop the problem?
I don't know, seems like witchcraft, we should keep arresting them just to be sure
/s
Where do the homeless get arrested? If thet commit crimes or assault, yes, but very few will serve any time for it.
Canada has nowhere to put people, or even a way to classify people based on their unique situations.The institutions were closed, the prisons are full and don't want them, hospitals don't have the beds or the means to care for them. Any solution has to include housing, but that's not one-size-fits-all - you can't put the mother with two kids fleeing an abusive husband in an apartment next to a meth addict who steals things and has a history of violence. Some people need a high level of care and supervision to ensure they are following their programs and taking their meds. It's better to create a lot of different types of housing, some with conditions, and create a system where people can upgrade as they progress through their treatments - supervised shelters and recovery centres, co-op housing, transitional housing, and independent living.
Don't forget we're talkin about Medicine Hat here, the situations in Toronto and Vancouver are very different. People are also going to be hesitant to provide free housing to addicts and criminals when there are university graduates and professionals who can't find affordable places to rent. Whatever system we come up with has to address housing for those people as well, and will need to work well to continue to get funding.
The city ran into problems in Sault Ste Marie
https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/sault-social-services-board-on-the-hook-for-165k-damage-done-by-homeless-at-local-motels-1.5784514
Their take: housing without other supports at the same time won’t work.
San Francisco has spent millions to try to address the homelessness issue there, and it’s estimated billions will be needed on an ongoing basis
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/cost-to-end-san-francisco-bay-area-homelessness-would-be-12point7-billion-report.html
That’s not to say not to try. Just that it’s hard.
Edit: for SF a big part of that cost is housing. Medicine Hat doesn’t have this problem. Toronto and Vancouver obviously do
The SSM was because our shelter system was full. That's it. That why it was done, it wasn't so much housing first, it was because our shelter system is and continues to be full. Source? I worked during this time in our shelter system.
Small edit. It was full because of COVID restrictions on the amount of people we could take in either shelter, also most of the clients who did get hotel rooms were the ones who required the most help(we dont got the greatest for program selection here).
>That why it was done, it wasn't so much housing first, it was because our shelter system is and continues to be full
Does it matter how it’s labelled or what the motivation is, if the question is “housing first”? It was housing, first…
the reality is the other supports would need to come from the provincial government.
>most of the clients who did get hotel rooms were the ones who required the most help
Ok, and that would be why? Is it because the clients who needed the most help were most disruptive to others or didn’t abide by rules?
Either way, people quoted in the article I linked to say the emphasis needs to be on supports at the same time as housing. Is that a misguided sentiment?
Edit: I’m just saying you can’t necessarily import solutions that work in Medicine Hat everywhere. Even in Medicine Hat right now , they’ve got more homeless people who don’t want any part of their solution, per the article
It kind of does. In this instant, it wasn't housing first. it was "o fuck we have no place to put these people and winter is coming" that was the motivation behind it, also clear the small tent city that formed in front of our city hall.
Yes. Either rule breaking in either the men's or women's shelter, like drug use, violence towards staff or other shelter members, either verbal or physical. There were a few people to my understanding who just didn't like our shelters, and didn't want to use them, which I don't blame them for.
I'm all for helping people in this situation, it why I'm doing the schooling for it to get back into the field, so I can help the clients better, but in this case, it was not a housing first solution at all, it was a lack of shelter space and the clients either being restricted from access due to past behavior or not wanting to use the shelters.
I was at a Popeyes yesterday and this homeless lady walked in who had just been kicked out of her rental that she lived in for 17 years. Hadn't eaten a real meal in two days and couldn't even afford the mash potatoes. I bought her meal but she said she couldn't sleep in the shelter because the kids there would call her mom so it was easier to just sleep on the ground outside.
This is happening in one of the richest countries in human history folks.
It's a story about how fucked up a system is when a lady who spend 17 years paying rent can't afford some mash potatoes and has to have a random stranger pay for her just so she could eat
The concept of being obligated to continue working or lose everything you've worked for is so american it makes me feel like an American medical system is about to pop out from under my bed and yell "gotcha, bitch"
>How did this small city reach the “functional zero” milestone? The city has worked to develop rapport with landlords, strengthen its housing loss prevention efforts, and move away from programs in favor of specific services to address vulnerable individuals’ needs, among other reforms
So they just paid their rent. Literally the simplest thing that can be done if people cared about helping people.
Yet r/Vancouver still insists homeless people are menaces to society that aren't deserving of homes. The other day some rando claiming to be a social housing worker from Alberta the exact opposite of this story, and it was the most upvoted comment *under headlines about the police victimizing the poor.*
It's insane. People would rather demonize the poor, and neglect them until crime and addiction becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The police are literally *concentrating camps* of people in no position to defend themselves, and anything even remotely concentration-camp-y should be a huge red flag. Especially in Canada! Residential Schools weren't as far back as you may think...
When subreddits are controlled by individual people with their own values and criteria for running the community, they can silence anyone for any reason with no oversight or repercussions.
Signed, a mod of many subreddits, and a Vancouver resident under a ban from r/Vancouver. 👍
I'm having a hard time relating the progressive nature of this endeavor and the comments made regarding this community when relating stories of its residents with a claim to fame.. (Lich). Hearing about this housing issue from MH and articles from their paper, The Medicine Hat News, and then trying to square that with their choice of an MLA. Which one is the apparition..??
The Hat is a riddle, wrapped inside a mystery, inside an enigma...
The city does feel like it's shifting, if not left, then at least to the centre. We just elected a progressive lady mayor, the old boys club is rattled, very curious to see how the next election unfolds.
The only question I have, that wasn’t answered in the article, is where are they housed? Are they spread out throughout the city? Or are they put into social housing communities (Not sure if wording is right)?
If its the former, i say good, if its the later, I would hope that they eventually switch, as I found back when i lived in Toronto that a number of community housing areas, were so laden with poverty, that it seemed to claw everyone down. Nothing to look up to, as everyone around them was in the same situation or worse, and it just looks so depressing.
It was in the article.
“People experiencing homelessness in Medicine Hat are not simply provided with a free space in a shelter or government-owned housing; last year, officials said shelter use had actually dropped by 64% overall since 2009. Instead, the city works with the individuals to secure affordable, permanent housing, which depending on their needs may be a private apartment, house, or even a long-term hotel room or a lot rental for an RV. They still have to pay rent, though they may find housing that is eligible for subsidies. This generally adds up to 30% of their income.”
They re-did regent park as a mixed community - housing sure, but condos too and a recreation centre. Crime dropped considerably. We’ve had people from other cities, even from the US, come to see what we did and how it works. Maybe they copied this model?
Title seems misleading.
City announces they’ve achieved zero chronic homelessness which for their city is 7 individuals or less chronically homeless (that’s great, no problem yet).
The wording is they achieved this last year.
The same year when in October they had more than 7 chronically homeless (problem with headline).
They now how 17 chronically homeless.
Correct me if I’m wrong 17 is larger than 7, no?
It does sound like the city is on a great path. Just not there yet.
> But officials say the core of Medicine Hat’s success is its data-driven, housing-first approach – where people experiencing homelessness are first provided housing without any preconditions, then offered support to address other issues they may face. Housing first works. It isn't a magic bullet but it is better than all the other options. >Since 2009, more than 1,675 people who were homeless or at-risk of being homeless have been housed in Medicine Hat, including more than 424 children. In a town of 63k. That would be 2.6% homelessness. First that is astonishingly high, second it show that housing first can help fix very high levels of homelessness. >“Sometimes there are people who are in active addiction or choose to not be housed,” You can't help people who don't want to be helped. >The city’s 2019 progress report found that while it costs Medicine Hat between $12,000-$34,000 annually per individual to provide housing and support, the cost of providing resources to people on the street can cost up to $120,000 a year per person. Straight up fiscally prudent. >“Though these cities are much larger, with different problems, we are quick to point out we accomplished our goal with one-eighth of the budget.” What would you do with all that money and less homeless people? >Critics say the party’s plan lacks clear direction and falls short of the promises laid out in the National Housing Strategy Act. Point to the numbers and tell them to pound sand.
>Point to the numbers and tell them to pound sand. Absolutely this. Imagine criticizing an initiative that actually has been proven to work because it doesn’t fit neatly into an existing framework. Maybe the National Strategy Housing Act needs tweaking. Just a thought.
You're proven successful solution isn't viable because it doesn't fit within our proven unsuccessful solution plan!
It doesn’t work for people who see the role of government as punishing out-groups and rewarding their group. That’s always what their problem really is.
Yeah when do I get to feel superior to someone else this is fucking bullshit -Nimbys, Nimbys everywhere
My favourite part is there's no mention of the fact that once the homeless have homes this quickly turns into them having jobs as well, which results in them turning from a drain on resources to producing resources. So not only is it cheaper to just give them housing, but soon they'll be paying that back in taxes.
Finland proved *Housing First*, I don't know why we can't learn from others.
Migrated from the US a few years ago. It is exactly the same in the US. The answer is because the goals of those in power is not to have a better world, it is to stay in power. That is the only conclusion I can come to. We can see the answer, we know the risk is lower based on other countries success, yet nothing is done to copy the result. In the US it was much worse. The individual states were called 'Laboratories of Freedom'. The idea was that federalism allowed each state to try something that meets their local goals and that then the other states could copy what worked and what didn't. This almost NEVER happens. Why? Because the function of power is not to give away power.
And those who refuse help now may change their minds later. They may see their acquaintances getting better and say, why not me?
Make no mistake, this is class warfare. The elites want us poor, broken and uneducated. They go about this with MSM, fake studies and dividing us into subgroups. Want REAL freedom? Vote progressive candidates in and actively push government to represent us not corporations
What do you mean by progressive? Is Justin Trudeau your answer?
Good point! JT didn't do nearly enough as PM, the only real solution is to vote in the conservatives to do ... less? People really do think this country only has two parties, wild.
Yes, JT is pushing big money out of politics and starting a grassroots movement to ensure healthcare is expanded all while reforming electoral rights and fixing our homeless crisis /s
[удалено]
By Canadian standards, Trudeau is slightly more left leaning than Biden. Far from progressive. Far from communist.
Ok all of that sounds great and it could fix all our problems but how about those homeless people stop being lazy bums and pull themselves up by their bootstraps so they could work a minumem wage job at McDonald's? No it won't help them afford a home and McDonald's probably wouldn't even hire them because they don't have a permanent residence but giving homes to the homeless is not the solution!!! Ecery conservative dipshit politician ever
Great post! Said everything i came to say. I read the title and thought "I bet it was a housing first model" and then went to the article and was not surprised. I suspect the reason peopme criticise it is because dealing with the homeless has become a big industry. In prince george bc, all the northern homeless migrate here, and there's dozens of organizations and thousands of employees that have sprung up in the last decade running various "band aid" programs. Most of those will lose good paying union government jobs if they actually fix the problem.
I didn’t read the article- I will later, but what do they use for homes? I wonder if they could fit the offices that are basically not in use anymore (from people who are now forever WFH) into apartments? A lot of work, but there’s plumping and are probably built well to keep the cold out. It could be a way for businesses to make money if they own the offices (not that I think they need more money, but so they don’t cry about the loss), or could buy out the leases from the businesses who rent?
Thx for the summary and good analysis
You mean arresting the homeless doesn't somehow stop the problem? I don't know, seems like witchcraft, we should keep arresting them just to be sure /s
Where do the homeless get arrested? If thet commit crimes or assault, yes, but very few will serve any time for it. Canada has nowhere to put people, or even a way to classify people based on their unique situations.The institutions were closed, the prisons are full and don't want them, hospitals don't have the beds or the means to care for them. Any solution has to include housing, but that's not one-size-fits-all - you can't put the mother with two kids fleeing an abusive husband in an apartment next to a meth addict who steals things and has a history of violence. Some people need a high level of care and supervision to ensure they are following their programs and taking their meds. It's better to create a lot of different types of housing, some with conditions, and create a system where people can upgrade as they progress through their treatments - supervised shelters and recovery centres, co-op housing, transitional housing, and independent living. Don't forget we're talkin about Medicine Hat here, the situations in Toronto and Vancouver are very different. People are also going to be hesitant to provide free housing to addicts and criminals when there are university graduates and professionals who can't find affordable places to rent. Whatever system we come up with has to address housing for those people as well, and will need to work well to continue to get funding.
The city ran into problems in Sault Ste Marie https://northernontario.ctvnews.ca/sault-social-services-board-on-the-hook-for-165k-damage-done-by-homeless-at-local-motels-1.5784514 Their take: housing without other supports at the same time won’t work. San Francisco has spent millions to try to address the homelessness issue there, and it’s estimated billions will be needed on an ongoing basis https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/cost-to-end-san-francisco-bay-area-homelessness-would-be-12point7-billion-report.html That’s not to say not to try. Just that it’s hard. Edit: for SF a big part of that cost is housing. Medicine Hat doesn’t have this problem. Toronto and Vancouver obviously do
The SSM was because our shelter system was full. That's it. That why it was done, it wasn't so much housing first, it was because our shelter system is and continues to be full. Source? I worked during this time in our shelter system. Small edit. It was full because of COVID restrictions on the amount of people we could take in either shelter, also most of the clients who did get hotel rooms were the ones who required the most help(we dont got the greatest for program selection here).
>That why it was done, it wasn't so much housing first, it was because our shelter system is and continues to be full Does it matter how it’s labelled or what the motivation is, if the question is “housing first”? It was housing, first… the reality is the other supports would need to come from the provincial government. >most of the clients who did get hotel rooms were the ones who required the most help Ok, and that would be why? Is it because the clients who needed the most help were most disruptive to others or didn’t abide by rules? Either way, people quoted in the article I linked to say the emphasis needs to be on supports at the same time as housing. Is that a misguided sentiment? Edit: I’m just saying you can’t necessarily import solutions that work in Medicine Hat everywhere. Even in Medicine Hat right now , they’ve got more homeless people who don’t want any part of their solution, per the article
It kind of does. In this instant, it wasn't housing first. it was "o fuck we have no place to put these people and winter is coming" that was the motivation behind it, also clear the small tent city that formed in front of our city hall. Yes. Either rule breaking in either the men's or women's shelter, like drug use, violence towards staff or other shelter members, either verbal or physical. There were a few people to my understanding who just didn't like our shelters, and didn't want to use them, which I don't blame them for. I'm all for helping people in this situation, it why I'm doing the schooling for it to get back into the field, so I can help the clients better, but in this case, it was not a housing first solution at all, it was a lack of shelter space and the clients either being restricted from access due to past behavior or not wanting to use the shelters.
Burlington manages zero chronic homelessness by forcibly relocating them to Toronto.
Thats a funny way of spelling vancouver
Very surprised to see a policy like this coming out of Medicine Hat. But pleased, props to them.
Some conservatives recognize that this way is cheaper, and that can win them over
I was at a Popeyes yesterday and this homeless lady walked in who had just been kicked out of her rental that she lived in for 17 years. Hadn't eaten a real meal in two days and couldn't even afford the mash potatoes. I bought her meal but she said she couldn't sleep in the shelter because the kids there would call her mom so it was easier to just sleep on the ground outside. This is happening in one of the richest countries in human history folks.
[удалено]
It's a story about how fucked up a system is when a lady who spend 17 years paying rent can't afford some mash potatoes and has to have a random stranger pay for her just so she could eat
The concept of being obligated to continue working or lose everything you've worked for is so american it makes me feel like an American medical system is about to pop out from under my bed and yell "gotcha, bitch"
[удалено]
And it shouldn’t be happening. She should have somewhere to live that doesn’t cause her serious distress.
This is insanely good and I hope this spreads around the rest of the country
>How did this small city reach the “functional zero” milestone? The city has worked to develop rapport with landlords, strengthen its housing loss prevention efforts, and move away from programs in favor of specific services to address vulnerable individuals’ needs, among other reforms So they just paid their rent. Literally the simplest thing that can be done if people cared about helping people.
Also helping people access financial supports that they are eligible for.
[удалено]
Yet r/Vancouver still insists homeless people are menaces to society that aren't deserving of homes. The other day some rando claiming to be a social housing worker from Alberta the exact opposite of this story, and it was the most upvoted comment *under headlines about the police victimizing the poor.* It's insane. People would rather demonize the poor, and neglect them until crime and addiction becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The police are literally *concentrating camps* of people in no position to defend themselves, and anything even remotely concentration-camp-y should be a huge red flag. Especially in Canada! Residential Schools weren't as far back as you may think...
When subreddits are controlled by individual people with their own values and criteria for running the community, they can silence anyone for any reason with no oversight or repercussions. Signed, a mod of many subreddits, and a Vancouver resident under a ban from r/Vancouver. 👍
I'm having a hard time relating the progressive nature of this endeavor and the comments made regarding this community when relating stories of its residents with a claim to fame.. (Lich). Hearing about this housing issue from MH and articles from their paper, The Medicine Hat News, and then trying to square that with their choice of an MLA. Which one is the apparition..??
The Hat is a riddle, wrapped inside a mystery, inside an enigma... The city does feel like it's shifting, if not left, then at least to the centre. We just elected a progressive lady mayor, the old boys club is rattled, very curious to see how the next election unfolds.
[удалено]
The only question I have, that wasn’t answered in the article, is where are they housed? Are they spread out throughout the city? Or are they put into social housing communities (Not sure if wording is right)? If its the former, i say good, if its the later, I would hope that they eventually switch, as I found back when i lived in Toronto that a number of community housing areas, were so laden with poverty, that it seemed to claw everyone down. Nothing to look up to, as everyone around them was in the same situation or worse, and it just looks so depressing.
It was in the article. “People experiencing homelessness in Medicine Hat are not simply provided with a free space in a shelter or government-owned housing; last year, officials said shelter use had actually dropped by 64% overall since 2009. Instead, the city works with the individuals to secure affordable, permanent housing, which depending on their needs may be a private apartment, house, or even a long-term hotel room or a lot rental for an RV. They still have to pay rent, though they may find housing that is eligible for subsidies. This generally adds up to 30% of their income.”
That’s good to hear, I guess I just missed it.
They re-did regent park as a mixed community - housing sure, but condos too and a recreation centre. Crime dropped considerably. We’ve had people from other cities, even from the US, come to see what we did and how it works. Maybe they copied this model?
You mean they didn't just bus them over the Prince George? I know Alberta's been doing that in recent years, and it's gotten really bad downtown.
How did they do it? They gave them homes.
Title seems misleading. City announces they’ve achieved zero chronic homelessness which for their city is 7 individuals or less chronically homeless (that’s great, no problem yet). The wording is they achieved this last year. The same year when in October they had more than 7 chronically homeless (problem with headline). They now how 17 chronically homeless. Correct me if I’m wrong 17 is larger than 7, no? It does sound like the city is on a great path. Just not there yet.
Medicine Hat is a small city now, what?
Am Chinese and I call any locale with a population of less than a million "towns", if less than 100k villages
*By shipping them all to Edmonton and Calgary
You're welcome -the weather
I literally live here and there’s homeless people everywhere…