A couple of Sundays ago I saw a piece on CBS about hoarding,
how it’s been declared a mental illness affecting about 5% of the
population. Earlier that week I saw an
article about a solution to homelessness being tested in Utah. Critical thinking includes the ability to
compare and contrast. What do these
things have in common or not?
“In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R.
visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person,
compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a
social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings
attached.” The only requirements were
that they be good stewards of their living space and that they get along with
their neighbors. The program has been successful
in getting people off the streets.
The story on hoarding showed pictures of houses filled with
stuff: old newspapers and magazines,
clothing, knick-knacks, used containers, and more. Attics, basements and living areas were full,
with little room left to live. Companies can be hired to assist in sorting and hauling the junk away, but the story emphasized the
need for counseling. Unless they change
behavior, they just fall back into the same patterns. The hoarders must own the responsibility to
fix the problem.
That was the big difference.
The approach to hoarding was to change the behavior, not just work on
the symptoms. A hoarder in an empty
house still has the characteristics and habits of a hoarder. A homeless person who is given a house still
has the characteristics and habits of a homeless person, but the Utah program
seemed to give this less attention.
Victory over homelessness is not people off the streets. That is only a symptom. Who holds the ownership?
See how this reasoning extends to other social
programs. Providing free
pre-kindergarten may give children the skills to compete with other, more
fortunate 5-year-olds, but it doesn’t solve the core problem of parents unable
or unwilling to get their children ready for kindergarten. Raising the minimum wage may allow people to
live a little more comfortably, but it doesn’t solve the problem that these
people have only minimum wage skills and, perhaps more importantly, that some
of them apparently feel no obligation to be able to support a family before
starting one. Free breakfast and lunch
programs in school likewise gloss over underlying issues.
The contrast between the hoarder story and the homeless
story shows the importance of dealing not only with the symptoms but also with
the underlying behaviors and responsibility issues, the core problems. Just because you can’t see a problem today
doesn’t mean that it’s been fixed or won’t recur later.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment