Talk:Housing First

Social Work C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mkarceo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khampton45.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marisa Balades, Alyssagpp. Peer reviewers: BeckMarin, Yaydnew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a classroom project

Khampton45 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight of criticism section

The criticism section is a wonderful example of politically-motivated WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL. We have five paragraphs predicting the failure of the program in the U.S. and its imminent demise, while current reliable sources say the exact opposite, and describe it as the most successful homelessness program in American history. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Viriditas that the criticism section is unduly weighted still, although I assume the article's contents have changed a fair amount since 2015.

Now, the criticism section mainly cites one paper where the only criticism is that Housing First policies don't sufficiently take ideological values into account and mainly rely on evidence. The paper itself uses the word 'positivist', but in how I read it they almost treat that word akin to 'empiricist but unjustifiably so'. The paper also makes a sweeping statement about what they claim critics of positivism argue, yet this statement in the paper itself has no citation to refer to. How it is quoted in the WP article, it seems the main critique of Housing First policies is that it is a progressive policy that in the US was implemented by a conservative administration and therefore incongruous (which is therefore bad?). This is in and of itself an unjustly simplistic view of conservatism, where the assumption of 'If scientific, empirical evidence dictates that a progressive policy (e.g. Housing First) would be better at achieving the desired result (e.g. reduce homelessness) than a conservative one (e.g. anti-homeless legislation such as park/metro benches one cannot sleep on or anti-vagrancy laws), a conservative executive should not implement it solely because it is progressive in nature' is made.

Also, the criticism is made that Housing First does not address or deal with other issues that correlate with homelessness such as substance abuse or mental illness. This criticism seemingly assumes that Housing First procludes other additional policies from being made to deal with those issues, or that Housing First is somehow incompatible with mental health support or rehabilitative programs. This is mentioned in the second paragraph to some extent, but then this is unjustifiably undermined due to the somewhat anti-empiricist claims by the main paper that is cited in the criticism section.

Finally, the criticism (again, mainly based on one article from 2011) fails to take into account all of the overwhelmingly, almost unanimously positive outcomes that Housing First policies have had in other countries (before and after the publishing of the article). The section on Housing First outside the US mainly talks about aims and predicted outcomes, but there is now plenty of data to provide for each of these countries and more (e.g. Finland, where this policy has been introduced on a national level and now it is one of the few i(f not the only) EU country where homelessness is actively and consistently falling, even taking people who are 'couch-surfing' into account). The section on evidence and outcome only discusses results from the US, which is a problem with this article as a whole.

If someone wants to quickly find out about criticisms of Housing First and only scrolls down to the criticism section, this section would give a very biased, US-centric, anti-scientific view of Housing First, where conservative ideology is strawmanned and policy efficacy claims rooted in verifiable data and falsifiable hypotheses are equivalent to ideological values rooted in origins of any kind, be they biased, religious, prejudicial, apocryphal, etc.

Furthermore, the exceptions section adds nothing to this article. LynTu (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This was the version I was criticizing back in 2015. How do you propose moving forward with the new version? I just took a look at the edit history and it appears this topic has been heavily edited by people who identify as arch right wing conservative libertarians, who frankly take an ideological position at odds with this article. I would like to suggest a major rewrite that pays close attention to any bias that’s been introduced by these editors. As it stands, the preferred policies of these editors has increased and exacerbated homelessness in the US, not decreased it, and their social Darwinist perspective tends to be in favor of homelessness, not against it. This presents major problems for neutrality and accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Housing First. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Housing First. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Critique 8 November 2017

Hello Fellow Wikipedians!

I do have some suggestions to improve this article. Housing First is an important and relatively new policy. However, I am noticing that this article needs an update.

1. In the articles “General Principles” they make reference project-based and scatter site implementations, but make no reference to what those implementation types are. They also refer to scatter-site implantation in the “Outside the United States” section of the article. The following is an excerpt from Collins, Malone, and Clifasefi 2013:

“In the scattered-site Housing First model, residents are offered a choice of individual housing units located throughout a community. Additionally, residents can choose to access a variety of supportive services that are delivered using an assertive community treatment model. In single-site or project-based Housing First programs, residents are offered units within a single housing project, where they can elect to receive centrally delivered case-management and supportive services. Perhaps the most well-researched and widely cited single-site Housing First model is the one established in the 1990s by the Downtown Emergency Service Center (DESC) in Seattle, Washington.2,8–12”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969126/

Including this information would be important for readers to understand the difference between scatter-site and project-based Housing First. Additionally, information regarding the preference of recipients and effectiveness of the two models would strengthen this article and give more insight into the implementation of Housing First. It is important to define these two implementation types and not assume the reader will automatically know meaning and difference between the two.

2. The article mentions in the “General Principles” that the goal of Housing First is that it:

“offers permanent, affordable housing as quickly as possible for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and then provides the supportive services and connections to the community-based supports people need to keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness.”

It would help if in the “Evidence and Outcomes” section there was a study that measured the retention rate of participants in the Housing First program. It will help readers to know if the Housing First model has a lower or higher retention rate that tradition housing programs.

For example, Tsemberis et Eisenberg 2000 found that “Clients in linear programs were less likely to remain housed (47% at five years) compared to clients in Pathway to Housing (88%).”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10737824

3. Last, there needs to be a more literature regarding the limitations of this policy. All of the cities this policy has been implemented are large, left-leaning cities. I believe that this policy has been implemented in more U.S cities and the article needs to be updated. Furthermore, there needs to be more literature regarding the economic feasibility of this policy in not just larger, well-funded cities, but also its possible implementation in smaller suburban cities with dense homeless populations.

Thank you! Mkarceo (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)mkarceo (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sources

https://psmag.com/social-justice/landlords-recreation-essential-housing-first-program-81439 Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Housing in the United States

A request has been submitted to WikiProject United States for a new article to be created on the topic of Housing in the United States. Please join the discussion or consider contributing to the new article. Best regards, -- M2545 (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is it the name of exactly?

The article uses "Housing First" as if it's a generic term. But if it were, it would probably have the grammatical structure of a noun phrase, and would surely not be capitalised. So clearly "Housing First" is the name of something. But what?

Possibilities I can see:

It's the name of the US government's policy specifically, and therefore uses of the phrase to refer to housing policies in other countries or the general concept are nonsensical.
It's the name of the US policy specifically, but sources not specifically about this are referring to the concept by this name for want of a generic name.
It was originally just the name of the US policy, but other countries have copied the name to use for their policies, either modelled on the US one or just with the same basic objective. Thus the US policy called Housing First, the proposed UK policy being referred to by this name and any other countries' policies, actual or hypothetical, whether they share the name or not, are distinct entites. But this begs the question of whether anybody owns it as a trademark. Can governments trademark the names of policies they enact?
It was originally just the name of the US policy, but it has become genericised. But then I would have expected it to have become lowercased in the process.
It is the title of an essay written by somebody proposing a housing policy. And so by claiming that a country or part thereof has Housing First, you are claiming that it has the policy as described in that essay.

Can anyone shed some light? In any case, I think the article needs to be refactored to reflect the status of the name, whatever it is. And maybe split or retitled if need be. — Smjg (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexandermmmmmm (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Psr25.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]