It Saves Millions To Simply Give Homeless People A Place To Live

[kpete]

It is cheaper to give homeless people a home than it is to leave them on the streets.




That’s not just the opinion of advocates working to end homelessness, nor is it the opinion of homeless people themselves. It is a fact that has been borne out by studies across the country, from Florida to Colorado and beyond.

The latest analysis to back up this fact comes out of Charlotte, where researchers from the University of North Carolina Charlotte examined a recently constructed apartment complex that was oriented towards homeless people.

Moore Place opened in 2012 with 85 units. Each resident is required to contribute 30 percent of his or her income, which includes any benefits like disability, veterans, or Social Security, toward rent. The rest of the housing costs, which total approximately $14,000 per person annually, are covered by a mix of local and federal government grants, as well as private donors.

In the first year alone, researchers found that Moore Place saved taxpayers $1.8 million. These savings comes from improvements in two primary areas: health care and incarceration.


MORE:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/03/23/4787934/study-concludes-charlotte-homeless.html#.UzGFP6hdX1E
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/24/3418140/charlotte-homeless-study/

[Walk away]

1. I saw a great documentry on a NYC program that provided homeless...

people with a low cost but nice apartment in a safe community, medical care, clothes, food and sociologists to help them to help them adjust and find whatever kind of work they were capable of doing. Social workers stuck with them through success and failure. Some eventually became able to take over the rent of their apartments and support themselves. Others could only manage volunteer work and needed ongoing support. And many others managed to work and contribute to their costs while getting partial support.

With all of the cost of medical care, sociologists, housing etc it still cut the on going cost of a homeless person to society in half. It gave everyone of them a decent home and the support they needed to survive like human beings instead of ignoring their plight.

The problem was...many people didn't like the program because it was a "give away". As crazy as it seems, some people would rather spend twice as much to see people suffer rather than get something "for free".

[enlightenment]

2. I've been daydreaming for a while now

that we could easily build "tiny house" communities - I envision small lots that have maybe eight to ten homes each, with a communal kitchen/social area and communal garden and perhaps (depending on the make-up of the residents) an on-site caretaker or counselor to help with issues that crop up. Rent would be on a sliding scale, or a percentage of income . . .

Lots of details to consider, like community dynamics and rules, etc (my son works with homeless transgender youth and has a lot of ideas about that) - but I was really taken with what the one of the Occupy groups (in Michigan?) was doing, providing temporary shelter with tiny houses. I'd like to see something more permanent, but still transitional to start (maybe two years). I agree that the key to addressing homelessness is to give people homes - not just temporary shelter.

In my city we have empty lots - some very large - pockmarking the landscape. Some are owned by the county and some by the BLM (long story). It would be really nice to see them turned to a good and useful purpose instead of another cheesy strip mall.