I try to read articles, editorials, and books about the subjects that interest me--I think knowledge is important and empowering. But I often find that the articles and books aren't nearly as interesting as my interests themselves.
However, I just finished an article that was so thought provoking and so interesting that I feel compelled to share it with you all. It is called "Million -Dollar Murray: Why problems like homelessness may be easier to solve than to manage." by Malcom Gladwell. It appeared in The New Yorker in 2006, and has some amazing things to say about the way America solves (or doesn't solve) the "power-law" problem of chronic homelessness.
What makes the problem of chronic homelessness a "power-law problem" is its distribution. In the article, Gladwell cites research that says the 10% of the homeless out there that are chronically homeless are using up more resources than the other 90% of the homeless. These chronically homeless, those at the "farthest edge of the curve," are basically the "few hard cases, and that's good news, because when a problem is that concentrated you can wrap your arms around it and think about soling it. The bad news is that those few hard cases are hard."
This problem of the smallest group of people draining the largest amount of resources cannot be approached by catering to the general homeless person with shelters, soup kitchens, and short-term management programs. Instead, the article follows a small group who proposed a radical solution: Don't manage the social wrong, solve it.
Just like any solution of this magnitude, there are pros and cons, and sacrifices and concessions involved, but the research is compelling--at least economically. What would it mean to give the chronically homeless a chance? How would it impact their lives? How would it impact ours?
Read the article for an answer, even if it isn't the answer, to these and other compelling questions.
Enjoy.
Recent Comments