s/o homelessness: Utah's solution? via Upworthy

[Deleted]

I saw this the other day and tweeted it to our local elected officials. I can instantly see problems with it since not every city's economy is going to look like this, but... thoughts?


www.upworthy.com/a-utah-towns-solution-to-homelessness-is-so-good-every-state-will-be-mad-that-they-werent-first?c=ufb2


Everyone, meet the housing-first model, a delightfully simple solution to homelessness.

It's exactly like it sounds. To find a solution to homelessness, the delightful folks of Salt Lake City ... put housing first.

First!

That means giving homeless people homes. It's a delightfully obvious choice, right?

"Instead of asking people to change their lives before we gave them housing, we chose to give them housing along with the supportive services and then allow them to change their lives if the wanted to." — Gordon Walker, Director of Housing and Community Development in Salt Lake City

BUT. But. But. If it's so obvious, why isn't everyone doing it?



GIF via HilariousGifs.com.



I really don't know.

Because, consider this math.

The housing-first model WORKS. BIG TIME.

Keeping homeless people on the street costs the government $20,000 per person.

It costs the government $7,800 per person to give them a house and some support, such as case management services.

That's $12,200 saved per person with the housing-first model.

And the end result?

72% decrease in homelessness.



Image via Brave New Films.



And those numbers are backed up by research. For specific numbers, this report from The National Alliance to End Homelessness does a great job — it's where the report for the Utah program got their numbers.

It just makes so much delightful sense.

If you're as into this smart idea as much as I am, I have an idea.

If you feel like sharing this, ALSO tag your hometown mayors, senators, and representatives when you do. It's easy to find who they are at OpenCongress, then just tag away and BOOM — it's like tapping them on the shoulder to remind them to care!

But be careful — if enough of us start caring and sharing this smart idea with our elected officials ... things might change!

[zoegirltx]

I'd read about this a while back & it seems like such a good (practical, conservative, money-saving) idea. I wish more cities would follow...

It's easier to get funding that you are forced to pay police/hospitals/emergency/etc than payin up front to prevent all those problems.

[mbcdefg]

Yes, but people wouldn't support this because then they'd get food and a roof over their heads "for doing nothing, while I have to break my back at work to pay my mortgage."  Even though it ends up being less money in the long run. 

[Velar Fricative]

May 28, 2015 10:11:06 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Yes, but people wouldn't support this because then they'd get food and a roof over their heads "for doing nothing, while I have to break my back at work to pay my mortgage."  Even though it ends up being less money in the long run. 

Bingo.

[downtoearth]

I agree with the idea of fixing the problem by providing a place to live. If republicans were less about "stopping hand outs" and more about fiscal responsibility, they would be behind this.

Also, I just read this article in the HuffPost about Occupy Madison (Wisconsin) building communities of tiny houses to give away to the homeless. They are as much about helping the lowest 1% up as making changes for the highest 1% in the US and their accomplishments are impressive!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/tiny-homes-madison-wiscon_n_6171634.html

[oreos]

Medicine Hat, Alberta (population 60,000) did the same thing this year and it's (apparently) working so far. In one article I read, it was mentioned that Housing First is best done in certain size cities as the city needs to be big enough to be able to provide certain resources, while also not being so big that there's an increased risk of individuals falling through the cracks.

[downtoearth]

May 28, 2015 10:25:30 GMT -5 oreos said:

Medicine Hat, Alberta (population 60,000) did the same thing this year and it's (apparently) working so far. In one article I read, it was mentioned that Housing First is best done in certain size cities as the city needs to be big enough to be able to provide certain resources, while also not being so big that there's an increased risk of individuals falling through the cracks.

I think I agree that it's not THE solution, but only part of the solution to homelessness to provide housing. I think living in northern climates, housing really is the primary need due to winter weather for a good chunk of the year, but there are a lot of other secondary, but still necessary, supports needed to really deal with homelessness.

[Deleted]

It saves so much money.

In my city, they saved $668,000.

In six months.

With 19 participants.

globalnews.ca/news/1627603/first-results-in-for-saskatoons-housing-first-program/

Numbers don't lie. There's just no arguing that this is the best solution. And it's "housing first", not only housing. Of course other supports are critical, but putting housing at the front rather than the back changes outcomes and behaviours massively. 

[ESF]

I have read about this before, I think it was on this board.

It's an amazing solution, and props to Utah for giving it a go.

I do think it's harder to make work in cities with enormous homeless populations and higher costs of living. I would love to see plans to make it work in San Francisco.

[meshaliuknits]

May 28, 2015 10:16:28 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I agree with the idea of fixing the problem by providing a place to live. If republicans were less about "stopping hand outs" and more about fiscal responsibility, they would be behind this.

Also, I just read this article in the HuffPost about Occupy Madison (Wisconsin) building communities of tiny houses to give away to the homeless. They are as much about helping the lowest 1% up as making changes for the highest 1% in the US and their accomplishments are impressive!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/tiny-homes-madison-wiscon_n_6171634.html

These remind me of the little houses that were built for the refugees after the quake in 1906.

[mbcdefg]

May 28, 2015 10:52:13 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

May 28, 2015 10:16:28 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I agree with the idea of fixing the problem by providing a place to live. If republicans were less about "stopping hand outs" and more about fiscal responsibility, they would be behind this.

Also, I just read this article in the HuffPost about Occupy Madison (Wisconsin) building communities of tiny houses to give away to the homeless. They are as much about helping the lowest 1% up as making changes for the highest 1% in the US and their accomplishments are impressive!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/tiny-homes-madison-wiscon_n_6171634.html

These remind me of the little houses that were built for the refugees after the quake in 1906.

There's also this, which seems like a shed moreso than a house: www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/09/this-man-built-a-tiny-house-for-homeless-woman-who-was-sleeping-in-the-dirt-video/ 

[msmerymac]

May 28, 2015 10:11:06 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Yes, but people wouldn't support this because then they'd get food and a roof over their heads "for doing nothing, while I have to break my back at work to pay my mortgage."  Even though it ends up being less money in the long run. 

See also: The fact that $1 in food stamps pumps $1.60 into the economy.