Study: It costs less to give the homeless housing than leave them on the street


mentalfloss
+2
#1
WALTER SMASH!!!

Study Reveals It Costs Less to Give the Homeless Housing Than to Leave Them on the Street

The news: A new study has found that it's significantly cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets.

University of North Carolina Charlotte researchers released a study on Monday that tracked chronically homeless adults housed in the Moore Place facility run by Charlotte's Urban Ministry Center (UMC) in partnership with local government. Housing these people led to dramatic cost savings that more than paid for the cost of putting them in decent housing, including $1.8 million in health care savings from 447 fewer ER visits (78% reduction) and 372 fewer hospital days (79% reduction). Tenants also spent 84 fewer days in jail, with a 72% drop in arrests.

Moore Place cost $6 million in land and construction costs, and tenants are required to contribute 30% of their income (mainly benefits) towards rent. The remainder of the $14,000 per tenant annually is covered by donations and local and federal funding. According to the UNCC study, that $14,000 pales in comparison to the costs a chronically homeless person racks up every year to society a stunning $39,458 in combined medical, judicial and other costs.

New opportunities: What's more, Moore Place is enabling the formerly homeless to find their own sources of income. Without housing, just 50% were able to generate any income. One year after move-in, they're up to 82%. And after an average length of 7 years of homelessness, 94% of the original tenants retained their housing after 18 months, with a 99% rent collection rate.



Image Credit: ThinkProgress

The program is so successful that UMC is planning a $4 million expansion to bring the total capacity from 85 to 120 units. More than 200 chronically homeless people in the county qualify for such housing, which is desperately needed to bring down Charlotte's homeless population, which has risen at more than double the national rate 2013 marking the fourth year the city saw a double-digit rise in the category. While the rate of homeless individuals without children dropped significantly, "on any given night, about 2,418 people in the community are homeless, including 952 in emergency shelters, 1,183 in transitional housing and 283 without any shelter."

The general population is biased: The original proposal for Moore Place was "controversial, if not ridiculed," according to the Charlotte Observer. Locals mocked the idea that giving the homeless subsidized housing would do any good. A 2011 report commissioned by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found that people have condescending attitudes towards the homeless, with the public perceiving higher levels of substance abuse problems (91%) and mental health issues (85%) than reported by the homeless themselves (41% and 24% respectively). It concluded that if "personal failings as the main cause of homelessness, it is unlikely that they will vote for increased public assistance or volunteer to help the homeless themselves."

But "you can't argue with the statistics," said UMC housing director Caroline Chambre. "This approach was controversial at one time because of the stereotype of who the homeless are, and we had to change that stereotype."

In 2012, total welfare spending for the poor was just 0.47% of the federal budget. It turns out that maybe if we spent a little more to help the chronically destitute solve their own problems, we could save a lot of money.

Study Reveals It Costs Less to Give the Homeless Housing Than to Leave Them on the Street - Mic (external - login to view)
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#2
Feed the homeless to the hungry. Bam! Two problems solved. You're welcome.
 
Locutus
#3
and do this all on Ellesmere Island.

/thread
 
Kreskin
+1
#4
Sounds like the native land claim resolutions. It's cheaper to buy the land and give it to the natives than it is to stay in court forever.
 
eh1eh
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Feed the homeless to the hungry. Bam! Two problems solved. You're welcome.

Soylent Green.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#6
Costs for 1 homeless person run from approx 40-50 k to 130 K or more.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7
This has been explored before. All to often the government or well meaning organizations
go looking for money and programs to get certain people back into the job market and get
them off the street and into some form of housing
The fact is many are intelligent and resourceful, however many have habitual or mental
problems that prevent them from achieving anything.
I believe it is actually cheaper to secure housing and shelter with provisions for the
necessities of life than it is to train them for jobs they'll never do. Put the training money
into people who will achieve and earmark it for economic promise and secure some form
of housing for those who will no succeed otherwise
 
petros
+3
#8  Top Rated Post
Feral people don't want to live indoors. No matter how much you're heart bleeds they won't change for your benefit.
 
EagleSmack
+3
#9
Too bad many would refuse to stay in housing or be kicked out of housing.


Even homeless shelters forbid dangerous and troublesome homeless people from staying.


Next topic.
 
Walter
#10
What would happen to those who are in the homeless industry?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Costs for 1 homeless person run from approx 40-50 k to 130 K or more.

Only because of the sheer volume of parasitic social workers that snarf up the bulk of the loot.
This too depends on the mental state of the homeless that are given subsidized housing. mostly low end housing is just a breeding ground for drug abuse and crime.

Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

What would happen to those who are in the homeless industry?

Do we care? Most of them could probably be trained to flip burgers.
 
petros
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

What would happen to those who are in the homeless industry?

They'd have to volunteer somewhere else.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Only because of the sheer volume of parasitic social workers that snarf up the bulk of the loot.
This too depends on the mental state of the homeless that are given subsidized housing. mostly low end housing is just a breeding ground for drug abuse and crime.



Do we care? Most of them could probably be trained to flip burgers.

Do you have any idea what Social Workers do or are you waiting for them to arrange for the transportation of your dead kid or bury that uncle of your,s that drank too f-cking much or set your wife up in a hotel while you are getting chemo or set your grandma up in housing?
 
EagleSmack
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post


Do we care? Most of them could probably be trained to flip burgers.


They could...but they wouldn't flip em'.
 
JamesBondo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Costs for 1 homeless person run from approx 40-50 k to 130 K or more.

Cool, I have a tent and there are some bushes behind the McDonalds, please send me a monthly cheque to my paypal account.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+1
#15
why save money doing the right thing, when we can spend millions and whine about the lazy, stupid, ingrates, it makes us feel better about ourselves

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

This has been explored before. All to often the government or well meaning organizations
go looking for money and programs to get certain people back into the job market and get
them off the street and into some form of housing
The fact is many are intelligent and resourceful, however many have habitual or mental
problems that prevent them from achieving anything.
I believe it is actually cheaper to secure housing and shelter with provisions for the
necessities of life than it is to train them for jobs they'll never do. Put the training money
into people who will achieve and earmark it for economic promise and secure some form
of housing for those who will no succeed otherwise

not to mention, compassionate

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Do we care? Most of them could probably be trained to flip burgers.

not burgers that I'd fukin' wanna eat...what a nightmare for an employer...
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Only because of the sheer volume of parasitic social workers that snarf up the bulk of the loot.
This too depends on the mental state of the homeless that are given subsidized housing. mostly low end housing is just a breeding ground for drug abuse and crime.



Do we care? Most of them could probably be trained to flip burgers.

What are you complaining about? Drug abuse and crime are the roads to success in today's business world.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

What are you complaining about? Drug abuse and crime are the roads to success in today's business world.

as long as you are on the right side of the needle
 
Twila
#18
Are the rich really the unfeeling boors they're made out to be? Studies suggest that the richer people are, the less compassion they show.

The Rich Show Less Empathy than the Poor, a Study Says | TIME.com (external - login to view)
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

as long as you are on the right side of the needle

Oh but we were all through our wonderful humanitarian effort in Afghanistan. The poppies have never had it so good and heroin supports the black ops which help the NWO subvert the remaining free worlders. More people die of TV exposure everyday then succumb to hard drugs, not to mention the much larger prescription death and destruction problem.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Oh but we were all through our wonderful humanitarian effort in Afghanistan. The poppies have never had it so good and heroin supports the black ops which help the NWO subvert the remaining free worlders. More people die of TV exposure everyday then succumb to hard drugs, not to mention the much larger prescription death and destruction problem.

prescription drugs are the biggest killer around...the stats on that are alarming:

By Dr. Mercola
Death by medicine is a 21st-century epidemic, and America's "war on drugs" is clearly directed at the wrong enemy!
Prescription drugs are now killing far more people than illegal drugs, and while most major causes of preventable deaths are declining, those from prescription drug use are increasing, an analysis of recently released data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by the Los Angeles Times revealed.
The Times analysis of 2009 death statistics, the most recent available, showed:
  • For the first time ever in the US, more people were killed by drugs than motor vehicle accidents
  • 37,485 people died from drugs, a rate fueled by overdoses on prescription pain and anxiety medications, versus 36,284 from traffic accidents
  • Drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69
Again, these drug-induced fatalities are not being driven by illegal street drugs; the analysis found that the most commonly abused prescription drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma now cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.
 
Nuggler
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

as long as you are on the right side of the needle

I prefer the left side, but that's just my socialistic side showin, eh
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

I prefer the left side, but that's just my socialistic side showin, eh

fuking leftard in everything even habit...
 
no new posts