海角大神

How Utah reduced homelessness by more than 90 percent

Utah cut its chronically homeless population by more than 90 percent. A shift from emergency relief to a prevention approach is saving Utah and other states money and reduces homelessness. 

Utah鈥檚 chronically homeless population has dropped by 91 percent since 2005, and may altogether be gone by 2015. The state has achieved this by approaching homelessness in an innovative, although simple, way:

If someone is homeless, give that person a home.

While some critics may argue that this solution simplifies a complicated issue by ignoring the social, economic, and mental health components that factor into homelessness, Utah and other states are discovering that by investing in people鈥檚 most basic needs, they are better able to address the other factors that lead to homelessness. And they are doing so with less money.

Lloyd Pendleton, the director of Utah鈥檚 Homeless Task Force, was not always a believer in the state鈥檚 current method of addressing homelessness, initially saying the idea was 鈥渢otally unrealistic.鈥� But now he says that prioritizing a home for those without has drastically changed the way the state can deal with other factors, including unemployment.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a philosophical shift in how we go about it,鈥� Mr. Pendleton 鈥淵ou put them in housing first 鈥� and then help them begin to deal with the issues that caused them to be homeless.鈥�

The chronically homeless are identified as those who have been without a home for over a year, or for four times in three years and have a debilitating condition. Since 2005, Utah鈥檚 chronically homeless population, which makes up about 10 percent of the homeless population, .

While they are a small percentage of the overall homeless, they are responsible for 50 percent of what the state spends on homelessness. Including health and jail costs, the state of Utah spends about $19,208 per homeless person per year. Comparatively, the 鈥淗ousing First鈥� strategy provides a home and caseworker to that same person for $7,800, cutting the cost by more than half while helping maintain personal dignity.

鈥淚t鈥檚 more humane, and it鈥檚 cheaper,鈥� 鈥淚 call them 鈥榟omeless citizens.鈥� They鈥檙e part of our citizenry. They鈥檙e not them and us. It鈥檚 鈥榳e.鈥欌��

that revealed multiple positive effects of its 鈥淗ousing First" program. Of the 400 individuals in the Colorado program, they reported a 96 percent housing retention rate, as well as a drop of more than 72 percent in emergency service costs.

But聽the housing-first approach only works if there is enough affordable housing to go around, 海角大神 reported.聽

滨苍听Boston, housing is so tight that it is not uncommon for people to wait four to 10 years for affordable housing, says Kelly Turley, director of legislative advocacy for the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless.

Massachusetts is one of 20 states that reported an increase in homelessness from 2012 to 2013.聽The increased need for emergency housing has become so great that the state has had to resort to placing families in motels because there are not enough shelters.

But when homes can be found, the approach is cost-effective, even in places with a lack of low-cost housing. In 2011, Massachusetts鈥檚 Home & Healthy for Good program looked at Medicaid, shelter, and incarceration costs for homeless individuals before and after providing homes. The per-person costs dropped from $33,514 per year to $8,539 after housing. with positive results.

James Surowiecki, who pens The New Yorker's "Financial Page," said that financially, the 鈥淗ousing First鈥� model approaches homelessness with a preventative mindset rather than treatment. In the long run, the US spends large sums to treat and cure problems 鈥� be they social, economic, or health related 鈥� when in fact its more fiscally responsible to invest upfront.

Our system has a fundamental bias toward dealing with problems only after they happen, rather than spending up front to prevent their happening in the first place. We spend much more on disaster relief than on disaster preparedness. And we spend enormous sums on treating and curing disease and chronic illness, while underinvesting in primary care and prevention. This is obviously costly in human terms. But it鈥檚 expensive in dollar terms, too.

Maybe giving homes to the homeless really is that simple.

鈥淭he success of Housing First points to a new way of thinking about social programs: what looks like a giveaway may actually be a really wise investment.鈥�