3 ms·
One of the interesting things that Utah does is called "Housing First." As with most things, there are pros and cons to the program. However, Utah's analysis ap
by swasheck 10y ago
One of the interesting things that Utah does is called "Housing First." As with most things, there are pros and cons to the program. However, Utah's analysis apparently exaggerated the affect that this program had on homelessness (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solved-homeles_b_9380860.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solve...). Regardless, what you say is correct and valid. Utah seems to care about addressing multiple issues and not just the appearance of homelessness. I hope other cities, states, and/or municipalities build upon what Utah has done.
- icc97 10y agoI'm not sure what the cons are? If as the Utah govenor says it's cheaper to provide housing than the police/hospital/prison costs it kind of seems pretty con free. In other parts of the country the housing would cost more, but the perhaps prison, hospitals and policing would cost more in those areas too. It also doesn't take into account the extra money injected by someone returning to work because they've got a fixed house. The article you point to rightly points out that the data is over hyped which is a shame. But the article then seems to use this to throw out everything that they've done in Utah. The author appears to have some kind of fairly strong bias which I think he brings to light with this quote: > Additional focus should be placed on transitioning people out of expensive supportive housing and into housing of their own or with family members when their well-being improves. As far as I can see, if the maths stack up then just keep building houses.