'The government will spend $54 million on fresh initiatives aimed at preventing and reducing homelessness.

The programme offers help to stay in housing to people with complex needs, such as mental health problems, addictions, criminal history, or family violence.

The Minister of Social Development Carmel Sepuloni said case managers and navigators would be a single point of contact for individuals and their families'- Radio New Zealand.

Thanks to the government for identifying the most vulnerable group making up the bulk of homelessness and would add long-term unemployment in the mix.

I know this because my charity group used to be the last resort for folks rejected from MSD and Housing services. Some individuals would not stay in a home allocated for them for a number of reasons including authoritative. That is; bossy landlords and caregivers who would always find something wrong with the tenant.

You know if you are targeted or stigmatised, you are probably not eligible for social services. But if you are helped, you have a label on your forehead for special treatment.

MSD staff are not there to make friends or feel sorry for you in fact sometimes you wish you'd never asked for help. The psycho social attitude is part of the process to shun those with needs and shy them away from taking advantage of the system.

The authority have now deployed security officers to watch your every move in MSD offices and in your so-called home. Those who endure special social treatments run away from their homes and would prefer the freedom of the street.

I also know that some genuine sick folks receive the harsh social treatment as if they are lazy and taking advantage of the system.

However, the classic case of addicts and folks enduring mental illness follows; as tenants they make a lot of noise to irritate the neighbours. So neighbours would demand their removal, the same time HNZ would not throw them out on the streets but move them along to another neighbourhood. And I guess that's why they end up in a home with authoritative monitors.

It seems at this stage of the issue is not only the lack of housing, but in part due to the social relations of service delivery to this sector that is somewhat condescending; tenants don't feel like a home.

Now, if MSD did not deploy a psycho social control approach to shun these folks from taking advantage of the system, everyone else would. There's compelling reasons for individuals to guard society's resources from those with special social needs.

It is a class attitude. The political message is delivered to those with special needs outside the barriers of society that they somehow don't deserve help. The attitude is the socialisation of class maintenance that segregates the needies from the privileged.

You know, Capitalism runs paralleled to its social consequences. A dynamic approach to its function unites the whole process and attempts at minimising unintended consequences. This is placing the ambulance a the top, the best that can be but knowing capitalists would impose the social consequences upon individuals to accumulate such issues as homelessness, violence and crime.

If you are an addict or stigmatised with mental illness or violence, society would shun you out of their neighbourhood. And it's a miracle if you can find an employer who will give you a job under the same label.

This issue has been around for as long as Capitalism. It is associated with political grandstanding.

You see, individuals would give up the warmth and comfort of their home for the rough condition of the street in order to avoid authoritative attitudes. And it's likely they would also avoid MSD and doctors queues as no one needs to be treated harshly.

Segregated by illness is not exactly in-line with modern diversity. The old attitude is engrained in the blood, individuals don't think twice about criticising or belittling someone else different from them.

The social treatment is generally deployed by feminism as a weapon to assassinate male character. Now it's used by anyone to belittle someone else based on differences. And the attitude has become an integral part of culture.

So, is it any wonder why in New Zealand has the highest rate of abuse? It is mental and emotional abuse when individuals with needs would avoid the warmth and comfort of a real physical home for the rough condition of the street in order to avoid a social treatment.

A home is a social need. Homelessness is deprivation of a social need. The authoritative and belittling attitude is mental and emotional abuse. Therefore, Homelessness is in part caused by mental and emotional abuse. The number of homelessness in Lower Hutt alone is over ten thousand. And with all other cities and towns put together, this conforms to the highest rate of abuse in New Zealand.

My suggestion is education and media promotion of language to address social needs. The social is still prominent in the cause of major issues. And the authoritative approach is not working and never have. May be those who have survived the condition could be in a better place to help.

Recent research has found that social behaviour is changing among the young, and the young diverse approach may be a better chance for rehabilitation than the same old….