Good point. It would obviously apply to places like Detroit and the marginal return should be pretty large if the program was smart. But I suspect in this case the mental-illness population is not as substantial, by ratio.
If we assume the ratio is some proportion of the general population, it would still be surprising if the effect warranted a full-fledged government-sponsored program (warrant, in the sense of profit, which I am assuming is the only means to convince most modern organizations to action).
As a soft example, I was told there are many pocket pickers in Milan that basically exhibit no hesitation nor covertness (in your face, even) in their stealing attempts. I don't know the impact on numbers, but I know that tourists are forewarned and generally go, aware of the risks.
I live in Manhattan, and one thing I've noticed is that panhandlers are generally polite and unobtrusive, and other homeless nearly invisible. I'm sure that's the result of aggressive policing -- a spoken but unofficial "don't hassle anyone and we won't find an excuse to bring you in." Maybe the answer is to minimize the negative effects of homelessness as much as possible without attempting to "eradicate" it?
Bear in mind that obviously I only know this equation from the middle-class white-collar side; for all I know, the lives of the Manhattan homeless are no better than in cities where they could be more rambunctious.
If we assume the ratio is some proportion of the general population, it would still be surprising if the effect warranted a full-fledged government-sponsored program (warrant, in the sense of profit, which I am assuming is the only means to convince most modern organizations to action).
As a soft example, I was told there are many pocket pickers in Milan that basically exhibit no hesitation nor covertness (in your face, even) in their stealing attempts. I don't know the impact on numbers, but I know that tourists are forewarned and generally go, aware of the risks.