
Finland is the only EU country where homelessness is in decline - astigsen
https://scoop.me/housing-first-finland-homelessness/
======
maxharris
To help contextualize this so I understand the situation better, can someone
compare and contrast what treatment for debilitating mental health issues such
as schizophrenia looks like in Finland vs. the US?

The second issue is, _In the last 10 years, the “Housing First” programme
provided 4,600 homes in Finland. In 2017 there were still about 1,900 people
living on the streets_. In the US, there are something like half a million
people living on the streets.

~~~
gamblor956
They never had Reagan, so they still treat mental illness there.

More importantly, Finland allows for the involuntary commitment if the
mentally ill. In the US, this is only allowed if the individual presents a
danger to themselves or others.

~~~
pjc50
That's almost what the Finnish system requires:
[https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/231986/comp...](https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/231986/compulsory_psychiatric_detention_and_treatment_in_finland.pdf?sequence=1)

"The current Finnish Mental Health Act stipulates thefollowing criteria for
compulsory admission:

.a person should be found to have a psychotic illness,and

.because of this psychosis, they are

(.in need of psychiatric care as their condition would otherwise worsen [this
is the main different criterion], or

.a danger to their own health or welfare, or

.a danger to the health or welfare of others)

.no other mental health services are suitable or adequate

(Finland of course has proper free at the point of use healthcare for all
residents, a far more important point for mental health than involuntary
commitment.)

~~~
DataWorker
You can imagine how that’s an artifact of a more socialized health system.
Perhaps unintentionally, it would function in many ways as a cost saving
feature that would be very difficult to implement in the US system. Think
about junkies. Can they be involuntarily committed because their condition
would “otherwise worsen”? Imagine the legal implications in a system where hmo
and insurers get to influence the decision about who is committed.

~~~
DuskStar
Or imagine a woman who has children out of wedlock, causing financial
distress. Obviously, if she's not institutionalized she'll _continue_ to have
children out of wedlock, which will cause her condition to worsen.

And only a mentally ill person would have children out of wedlock, right?

And before you say that that's unrealistic... I'm pretty sure that that exact
logic was used to institutionalize people in the US back in the 20s and 30s.

------
mnm1
Finland is the only country in the EU that has figured out that people need to
fulfill the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy first before starting on the
higher levels? Are you fucking kidding me? A college student could come up
with this plan. Why isn't everyone doing it? Oh yes, I forgot about the part
where it's necessary for society and government to be cruel to the homeless to
demonstrate to everyone else that ... blah blah something or other stupid
argument from cruel, heartless, unempathetic assholes goes here.

------
teekert
I recently, with work, did a tour around Eindhoven (the Netherlands) together
with Homeless people. I learned that one never has to be homeless in that
city, there are many locations to get food, shelter and help. The homeless
people on the streets have such severe ADHD that sleeping halls stress them
out, or they have other mental issues, can't deal with authority, have a
severe lack of trust or fear for the healthcare system, etc. It is impossible
_for a healthy mind_ to stay homeless (unless by choice).

~~~
yokaze
From what I heard from a homeless person is, that the problem with the
sleeping halls are other homeless people.

It would stress anyone out, if your "cohabitants" fecate in the shower, start
screaming in the middle of the night, pose a risk of physical abuse, stealing,
etc...

So, if you consider preferring not to live in such conditions a choice, then
yes, it is impossible. But in my book, it is sounds rather like a choice of a
healthy mind and not one a civilized wealthy society should put one up with.

------
CryptoPunk
>>The country applies the “Housing First” concept.

California also applies "Housing First", and it doesn't work. According to
some reports, it gas led to social housing coming to be rife with drug use and
dominated by drug dealers, because previous restrictions on drug use on
premises were lifted as part of the Housing First philosophy.

------
JordanFarmer
Where is the part on how Finland has been deporting Iraqi refugees.

~~~
distances
In a different article, surely?

------
gridlockd
The headline is factually wrong. The truth is that Finland has reduced the
population of homeless by 35% over ten years[1].

While I applaud easing the bureaucratic hurdles in giving people access to
homes, in many cases not being offered a home is not the reason why people are
homeless. It's simply not "as easy as that".

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-
miracle...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jun/03/its-a-miracle-
helsinkis-radical-solution-to-homelessness)

~~~
splitrocket
Logically, your argument is baffling on its face: homelessness is literally
the condition of not having a home. Giving someone a home literally solves the
problem.

All that said, "Housing First" is the most effective, lowest cost, evidence
based program we have to substantially lower homelessness. It works, and it's
vastly cheaper than both the status quo (
[https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/resources/lessons/...](https://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/resources/lessons/million-
dollar-homeless-patient) ) and just about everything else we've tried.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_out...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Evidence_and_outcomes)

~~~
noirbot
It can solve it in a literal way that doesn't actually meaningfully change the
societal problems of Homelessness. If, for example, we thought it vital that
everyone own a car and drive everywhere, and that people walking to work was a
problem to be solved, you could give me a car and I'd no longer be "carless".
That doesn't mean I will use it, or stop walking to work, or otherwise change
the reasons I didn't have a car before.

That's not to say that literally giving people houses isn't a good idea, and
won't solve some chunk of the issues of homelessness. But, for instance, if I
was sleeping in my broken down car on the street near my work, and you gave me
a free house on the other side of town, I'm not "homeless" now, but it now
introduces new problems of how I get to work across town.

Giving someone something they lack in life is a lot like giving someone a
organ transplant. Hypothetically, we could "cure" a lot of liver diseases by
giving everyone a "new" liver, but we have to get that liver from somewhere,
and the recipient has to be able to integrate it into their life without it
being rejected, and they have to not keep doing the things that led to them
having the problem in the first place or else it all repeats in a few years.

------
metalrain
While homelessness might be in decline and shelters have more capacity, you
can still find people sleeping on the floors of public pay-per-use toilets in
Finland. So no, homelessness is not ended and probably never will be.

~~~
throwlaplace
Lol and polio and measles will never be eradicated either because we still
have cases. oh wait there's a reason why they haven't been eradicated hmmmmm.

~~~
calmworm
I don’t see the connection. What is the point you are trying to make here?

~~~
throwlaplace
my point is that to assume that something that has existed (continues to
exist) will never cease to exist is fallacious reasoning.

------
maxharris
I take issue with the practice of labeling everyone on the street as
"homeless", because the truth is that there are many different causes:

* battered spouses fleeing domestic violence

* runaway teenagers

* veterans whose mental and physical injuries

* debilitating mental illness

* impossibly high housing costs due to NIMBYism and local regulations

* alcoholism, drug, gambling addiction

That's not an exhaustive list, of course. We have to start by changing the way
we speak about this. We need labels that strike at the heart of each issue,
that capture the thing that's really going on, not just the surface-level
phenomenon.

I live in LA, and I don't own a car, and many people that live on the street
don't either. Does that mean that it's valid to label us all as "carless"?

I believe that the words we use matter, because they shape our thinking, and
therefore the policies that we ultimately enact. Calling everyone "homeless"
leads to attempts to treat multiple diseases with the same cure, and I believe
that is ultimately doomed to failure.

~~~
me_me_me
> I live in LA, and I don't own a car, and many people that live on the street
> don't either. Does that mean that it's valid to label us both as "carless"?

Yes, that's the exact definition of not possessing a car. The circumstances
might be different and reasoning for not having one too, but if both were
asked do you own a car the answer is the same.

~~~
SkyBelow
Would the definition be based on possessing or owning? What if one does
possess a place they choose not to use (run away teen)? What about being able
to stay in a place but only for a short term?

I know a guy who recently sold his old house and bought a new one, but because
of some confusion, ended up not having a home for two weeks. It would seem odd
to call him homeless.

~~~
_jal
If you're not involved in adversarial contract authoring, I don't get the
appeal of the "what about this edge case" game.

> Would the definition be based on possessing or owning?

Given that nobody calls people renting apartments homeless, I think this self-
answers.

In any case, voluntarily being temporarily in a situation wherein one does not
own property in not commonly confused with living on the street for reasons I
believe to be fairly obvious. It has to do with that word "voluntarily".

~~~
SkyBelow
>If you're not involved in adversarial contract authoring, I don't get the
appeal of the "what about this edge case" game.

My mind often goes to the boundary cases because that is where the real
differences occur at.

For social issues in general, I've seen enough cases of people stretching
definitions and using selective definitions that are enough against the norm
that the end statement made is purposefully misleading. You might say it is
adversarial advertisement authoring.

------
at-fates-hands
For some perspective:

Finalnd's military budget: 300 million

US military budget: 700 BILLION

The US could dump a lot of money into these social services to address people
who are homeless, drug addicts, and other people on the fringes of society.

We are however, constantly put in a place where other nations depend on us for
their security. As such, they don't have to have a massive defensive budget
when they can rely on us to take care of them.

If we had a military budget that was more inline with simply keeping our own
country safe, we would have a ton more money to take care of the people who
really need it.

~~~
commandlinefan
Assuming, of course, that if Finland had to provide for its own defense
(rather than relying on us), they would still have money left over for social
programs.

~~~
aglavine
1\. USA cuts military budget

2\. Russia invades Finland. USA does nothing.

3\. Homelessness in Finland peaks

~~~
tappio
Why would USA defend Finland as Finland is not part of NATO? The same way they
defended Ukraine as Russia occupied Crimea and invaded East Ukraine?

------
Bostonian
"Those affected by homelessness receive a small apartment and counselling –
without any preconditions."

I doubt it will work in Finland in the long run, and even if it does, Finland
and the U.S. have very different populations. Most Americans work to put a
roof over their head, and it's unfair to them to "unconditionally" give some
people housing. It's also a big disincentive to work. The current unemployment
rate is 3.5%. There are homeless shelters to prevent people from freezing to
death, but that's very different from giving someone their own apartment.
Millions of people would love a "small apartment" in Manhattan or San
Francisco but cannot afford to live there. Are you going to allocate the
apartments to people who are not contributing to society?

~~~
netsharc
Freaking hell, "Sorry, you'll have to sleep outside, I can't let you sleep in
this warm house and bed, because it wouldn't be fair to others.".

You probably have a meritocratic view of the world (as many Americans do),
that hard work will lead to success. If you believe that, you logically would
have to believe the opposite: the people failing failed because they are lazy.
But you are discounting luck or upbringing:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTDGdKaMDhQ)
. Imagine someone becoming homeless after being dumped by their partner. Or
not being able to afford doctor's bills and also losing their job after taking
too many sick days (this is not relevant to Finland, since that doesn't happen
there, but it is in the US).

And from the article, doesn't sound like the Finns will just let someone stay
in such an apartment and be jobless and bum around:

> The result is impressive: 4 out of 5 homeless people will be able to keep
> their flat for a long time with “Housing First” and lead a more stable life.

So that means 1 in 5 fail to reach that stable life and lose their flat again.
As the article also says, their policy is actually cheaper compared to what
you think is "fair", they let the homeless have somewhere to sleep, so they
can start worrying about the next thing in their lives, which is probably
getting a job. Imagine how shitty it is trying to find a job if you're mostly
worried about where to sleep, shower, or shit, daily.

~~~
Bostonian
You ignored what I wrote, "There are homeless shelters to prevent people from
freezing to death, but that's very different from giving someone their own
apartment."

~~~
netsharc
Fine. And I think I (and 1 or 2 other replies to your comment) have also
addressed that a homeless shelter is not sufficient to put someone on a stable
path to return to being a "productive member of society" (all hail capitalism,
for productivity is the goal of life).

Or what do you want me to address in regards to this sentence? That you're not
that heartless, because hey, the homeless in your world won't freeze to death,
they can go to the shelter. Despite the fact that you think actually helping
them long term by offering them the apartment (which the article says is
cheaper than taking care of them as they remain homeless) and a path to normal
life, that's just too much, and unfair?

