K
Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness By 91 Percent; Here's How : NPR
Some highlights of the article:
Conservatives hate the "s word" (socialism) and think people are just plain lazy. Nevertheless, lazy or not, there is a group of people that end up costing the government more money (no insurance/jail time). They realized that through their program, people are more likely to be productive and out of jail if they were housed. Utah ended up saving money while simultaneously taking care of homeless people. Isn't that the better alternative than just to have the government use tax payer money to pay for ER visits/lock them up?
What arguments do you have against the US adopting this pragmatic approach if it works?
Some highlights of the article:
The idea of Housing First is that housing comes first, services later. Clients do have to pay some rent — either 30 percent of income or up to $50 a month, whichever is greater.
"Because I was raised as a cowboy in the west desert," Pendleton says, "and I have said over the years, 'You lazy bums, get a job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps.'"
As a conservative, Lloyd Pendleton didn't think the government should simply give people a place to live. But he changed his mind after learning about the Housing First model and now heads Utah's Homeless Task Force.
Then in 2003, Lloyd Pendleton went to a conference on homelessness in Chicago.
At that conference, a founder of the Housing First philosophy, Sam Tsemberis, told him that chronically homeless people cost the government a lot of money when they're living on the street, because of services like emergency room visits and jail time.
HUD estimates that annual cost as between $30,000 and $50,000 per person.
Housing them simply costs a lot less.
As a conservative, Lloyd Pendleton didn't think the government should simply give people a place to live. But he changed his mind after learning about the Housing First model and now heads Utah's Homeless Task Force.
Then in 2003, Lloyd Pendleton went to a conference on homelessness in Chicago.
At that conference, a founder of the Housing First philosophy, Sam Tsemberis, told him that chronically homeless people cost the government a lot of money when they're living on the street, because of services like emergency room visits and jail time.
HUD estimates that annual cost as between $30,000 and $50,000 per person.
Housing them simply costs a lot less.
What arguments do you have against the US adopting this pragmatic approach if it works?