I believe that what most of these "studies" refer to is based on revealed
preferences: Given that jobs and homes are available that these people could
choose in order to move off of the streets, the fact that they still live on
the streets demonstrates their revealed preference for homelessness rather
than work and lodging. I do recall some past crude studies whereby homeless
people were taken off of the street and given housing, food, etc., at no
money cost to them. As part of this experiment, residents were required to
take care of the house, themselves, etc., for which they refused. Within a
very short period of time, most of them left to be back on the street. I
also remember an anecdotal story about a homeless person who was being fed
daily by a local restaurant owner. One day the restaurateur requested that
the homeless person sweep the front sidewalk in exchange for his meal at
which point the homeless person exacted revenge by vandalizing the
restaurant. The "studies," and this anecdote, are both crude and
unscientific, accounting for mental illness is certainly a factor that
complicates any study claiming homelessness is voluntary.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Dickens historical accounts. Indeed, in the
early 80s a federal judge barred St. Elizabeths Hospital--a mental institute
in Washington, DC, where, by the way, John Hinckley is detained--from
holding mental patients against their will. St. Es, as did other mental
institutes nationwide, immediately released any patient wishing to leave.
The media, artists, and other advocates against Reagan immediately portrayed
the rise in homelessness as being caused by Reagan's policies and proof of
his insensitivity towards poor people. If homelessness is on the rise, which
would not be surprising, you certainly never hear it being attributed to
Clinton's policies or proof of his insensitivity to poor people.
What has not been commented on is that all localities, save Houston, have
zoning restrictions barring multi-family sharing of single-family residences
(i.e., there can be no more than two or three people with different last
names living in the same single-family home -- the wording from a North
Carolina community zoning regulation). This prohibits for example, six
people pooling their resources to live in a two or three bedroom residence.
Mark Steckbeck
On 1/25/01 7:34 AM, "William Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If someone knows of a study showing that homelessness is voluntary I would
> love to see it. I've never heard that claimed before for the obvious reason --
> how would you ask about it? I can't imagine that a majority of homeless would
> say that they would prefer living on the street no matter what their resources
> were or if free safe shelter were available. I do know that many homeless
> people will only go to a shelter when it is necessary due to the weather (and
> sometimes not then) because shelters are evidently dangerous places where
> things get stolen and people get knifed. I can imagine this being the source
> of the notion that homeless choose homelessness.
>
> A few years ago I read the literature on homelessness. As I remember: 1)
> Mental illness is a problem for only about 1/4th of the homeless. A majority
> did have drug or alcohol problems. 2) Deinstitutionalization has very little
> to do with the rise in homelessness as most deinstitutionalization took place
> a decade before the rise in homelessness (which those of us who lived through
> it will recall as taking place in the early 1980s). 3) The rise in
> homelessness correlated with a large cut back in support for low income
> housing, but the mechanism by which this would have produced the rise in
> homelessness is hard to describe since the people who were showing up as
> homeless were not the type who would have been in public housing and public
> housing never covered more than a fourth of those eligible anyway. 4) Four
> things which are thought to have contributed to the rise in homelessness: a)
> Building codes that made SRO hotels untenable, b) a steep rise in housing
> costs due mainly to !
> a steep rise in real interest rates and a change in the tax treatment of
> rental housing, c) the elimination or sharp reduction of state general
> assistance programs, d) the 1980/82 recessions.
>
> -- Bill Dickens
>
> William T. Dickens
> The Brookings Institution
> 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> Phone: (202) 797-6113
> FAX: (202) 797-6181
> E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> AOL IM: wtdickens
>
