We are Loving the Homeless to Death

How endless handouts, low expectations, and a fear of accountability leave people addicted, dependent, and dying outside

I live in Portland, Oregon, and for more than two decades, I worked directly with the homeless in the nonprofit world. I did not get into that work to shuffle people from one meal line to the next or to make life on the streets slightly more tolerable. I got into it because I wanted to help people change their lives. I wanted to help them get off the streets, heal, and move forward.

But over time, I came to a painful realization: much of what we were doing was not helping people escape homelessness. In many cases, we were helping them survive in it.

That is an uncomfortable truth, especially for people who have built careers, organizations, and political identities around the current model. But it is the truth I saw firsthand, over and over again, on sidewalks, in camps, under bridges, and outside shelters. We fed people. We clothed them. We handed out tents, blankets, hygiene supplies, and bus passes. We did welfare checks. We treated every immediate crisis as if it were the main crisis. But too often, we failed to confront the deeper one: people were stuck, deteriorating, and dying in lives with no structure, no expectations, and no clear path out.

In the nonprofit world, this was framed as compassion. We were told our job was to meet people where they were. We were told not to push too hard. We were told that addiction, chaos, criminal behavior, and self-destruction were all downstream of trauma, inequality, oppression, and housing costs. Some of that is true. But what was left unsaid was just as important: if you build an entire response system around minimizing discomfort without demanding progress, many people will remain exactly where they are.

The longer I did outreach, the more I saw the unintended consequences. Dependency was not a side effect. It was becoming the norm.

Many homeless individuals I worked with went from hoping someone might help them to expecting someone would handle everything for them. They needed help getting clothes, food, transportation, and appointments. They needed help calling family, cleaning camps, replacing IDs, filling out forms, finding shelter, and solving the most basic problems. Some of that help was necessary, especially at first. But somewhere along the way, the system stopped being about stabilization and started becoming about maintenance. We were not always helping people regain independence. We were often buffering them from the very discomfort that might have pushed them toward change.

I remember one client who called himself Utah. He was in his late 30s and living in the doorway of an old dance studio under the Hawthorne Bridge. He had stacked piles of junk around the entrance, leaving only a small opening to crawl in and out. I brought him food and supplies every other day for months. In my mind, I was doing the right thing. I was keeping him alive. I was showing compassion. I was being consistent. Then I went on vacation.

When I came back a few weeks later, I found him barely alive. I had to crawl through the opening to wake him up. He was weak, disoriented, and close to death. He had not eaten. He had not drank water. When I asked him what happened, he told me he had been waiting for me to bring it.

That moment has stayed with me ever since, because it clarified something I did not want to admit: I was not just helping him survive. I had helped train him to wait.

I had become part of a pattern that rewarded passivity and dependence. I had stepped into the role of provider without moving him any closer to self-sufficiency. I was treating the symptoms of homelessness while feeding the habits that keep people stuck in it.

That was the moment I began to question everything. Were we helping people, or were we helping them remain homeless longer? Were we saving lives, or simply prolonging suffering in a more socially acceptable form? Were we practicing mercy, or participating in a kind of slow abandonment disguised as care?

My employers did not see it that way. The message was usually the same: our role was to keep people alive by meeting their basic needs, and broader change could only happen after some larger transformation in society. Until then, all we could do was hand out supplies, reduce harm, and avoid expectations that might be seen as judgmental.

But that was not why I got into social services. I did not enter the field to become a street-level maintenance worker for human misery. I got into it because I believed people could recover. I believed they could rebuild. I believed that even deeply broken lives could change with the right mixture of support, accountability, encouragement, and persistence.

The turning point for me was understanding the difference between helping and enabling. Real help is not always easy. It is not always comfortable. It does not always look compassionate in the shallow, performative way our culture has come to prefer. Real help requires setting expectations. It requires telling the truth. It requires refusing to normalize behavior that is destructive, criminal, or deadly. It requires seeing homeless people not as permanent victims of society, but as human beings still capable of agency, growth, and responsibility. That is where empowerment comes in.

We have all heard the saying: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It may sound cliché, but in homeless services it points to a fundamental truth. A person does not leave the streets by becoming more comfortable on them. They leave the streets by being challenged, supported, and helped toward a different life. That realization changed the way I worked.

I began to focus less on endless maintenance and more on forward motion. I still offered help, but I tied that help to a larger purpose. I stopped seeing my job as merely keeping someone alive until the next outreach shift. I started seeing it as helping them reconnect with responsibility, routine, and hope.

I remember one man who had spent six years living in a tent outside a homeless shelter. Six years. Day after day, season after season, just outside the place that was supposed to represent a way out. Like many others, he had become trapped in the rhythm of street life. He was surviving, but he was not living.

I approached him differently. I told him clearly that I wanted to help him get sober, get a job, and get off the streets. I gave him responsibility. I laid out expectations. I made it clear that I believed he was capable of more, but that belief came with a challenge: he had to participate in his own rescue.

Something changed in him when he realized he was no longer being treated like a permanent casualty. He was being treated like a man who still had a future.

His energy changed. His posture changed. His demeanor changed. He started taking sobriety seriously. He started contributing to his own progress. He began doing the hard things that real change requires. Every day I saw improvement, not because I was doing everything for him, but because he was beginning to do things for himself again.

That did not mean he no longer needed help. Far from it. Getting off the streets is not simple, especially for people trying to navigate addiction, trauma, untreated mental illness, criminal histories, and a social-service system so fragmented and bureaucratic that even professionals struggle to navigate it. People often need someone to guide them through that maze, advocate for them, and keep pushing when they want to give up. That is what good outreach should be.

A good outreach worker should do what a good teacher does with a struggling student: offer support, give direction, insist on effort, and refuse to give up. The goal should not be to remove every hardship while asking nothing in return. The goal should be to help someone build the internal and external tools needed to function again.

Over the next two months, that man got clean, entered transitional housing, found work, and eventually went back to college. He earned his degree. Today he is married, has children, lives in a home, and is a functioning member of the community with responsibilities, expectations, and rewards.

The truth is that many people can change when the system around them stops expecting so little. Not everyone will succeed. Some will relapse. Some will refuse help. Some will sabotage themselves again and again. But that is not an argument against expectations. It is an argument for better, more serious, more engaged intervention.

What we have now in too many cities is a system that confuses survival with success. If a person is still alive in a tent after five years, still addicted, still untreated, still cycling through emergency rooms, jails, shelters, and sidewalks, we call that harm reduction. We call that compassion. We call that meeting people where they are.

But what if where they are is killing them?

What if the kindest thing we could do is stop pretending that endless outdoor survival is an acceptable outcome? What if the real cruelty is not expecting more, but expecting almost nothing at all?

This is where the homelessness debate goes off the rails. Too many people talk as if the only humane response is unconditional support with no demands, no structure, and no behavioral standards. But a society that offers food, tents, and excuses while leaving people in addiction, psychosis, and chaos is not practicing compassion. It is practicing surrender.

That is why I have become so skeptical of large homelessness budgets and grand political promises. Money matters. But money without a philosophy of recovery, accountability, and measurable progress is just fuel for a broken system. We can spend hundreds of millions of dollars and still leave thousands of people rotting in tents, because the issue is not just resources. It is the model.

We do not need more utopian rhetoric. We do not need more excuses. We do not need more systems built around managing decline. We need a model centered on empowerment, responsibility, treatment, recovery, and relentless navigation toward stability.

That means telling the truth: some people need structure before they can succeed. Some need treatment before housing alone will work. Some need expectations before they rediscover self-worth. Some need consequences. All need human connection. And nearly all need someone willing to believe they are capable of more than the streets.

Thousands of people are languishing and dying in America’s encampments, not just because society has failed them, but because the systems designed to help them have settled for too little. We have built an entire culture around keeping people alive in misery while calling it progress.

We will not solve this crisis with bigger budgets alone. We will not solve it by romanticizing victimhood or pretending every destructive behavior is morally neutral. We will not solve it by making street life more manageable while abandoning the harder work of helping people leave it.

We will solve it by expecting more, offering more meaningful support, and refusing to give up on human potential. The homeless do not need a system that simply feeds their dependency. They need a system that fights for their future. That is the difference between helping people survive and helping them thrive.

Please share to help it gain a wider audience, and please consider becomming a paid subscriber to support my independent journalism.