海角大神

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 said, reported NBC News. 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, reduced from 1,932 to 178 individuals, reported NBC News.

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� Pendleton told NBC News. 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��

The Colorado Coalition for the homeless, which serves more than 15,000 homeless individuals and families annually, conducted a study 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

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. New York, Seattle, Maine, and Chicago have also implemented 鈥淗ousing First鈥� programs 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. He writes:

Maybe giving homes to the homeless really is that simple. Surowiecki writes:

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�