I agree that a lot of programs for the homeless suck, and they suck for the same reason that a lot of prison programs suck, in that people often attach moral or social evaluations to the people involved -- homeless or criminals -- that just aren't true. They don't see "there goes me, except for a few lucky encounters", they see "there goes something I could never be".

Which is why I feel even more obligated to be involved on the advocacy side -- part (perhaps even all) of fixing the problem is changing the narrative in society about who the homeless are. Shaping that narrative, and the effect it has on choices about our economic model or policy decisions, really is the most direct thing I could do to combat homelessness, because it eats at the heart of what makes homelessness so damaging.

That being said, I'm also a big fan of more scientific methods. Things like "housing first" programs are showing HUGE promise in making lasting change, and while less glamorous, we're slowly tying the social safety net back together and working to make it more efficient, so less people fall through the holes (which got a lot bigger when certain people were in power and went around making tears, but c'est la vie) and become trapped in homelessness in the first place.

I have a lot of hope for involuntary homelessness being (largely) solved in another generation or two, if we can keep momentum on it. The problem of what to do with some of the people who are... less there mentally, and have trouble functioning in society at a personal level is of course difficult in the long term, because while we can give them houses easily enough, keeping them in them might require involuntary and on-going intervention at times, and that's a very touchy subject. Mental health care, particularly involuntary mental health care, has a dark history in this country.

I actually need to get going, but I've enjoyed speaking with you.