12 ms·

Utah is Ending Homelessness by Giving People Homes

177 points by jamesbritt 13y ago

wyager 13y ago
Seems like a sustainable permanent solution...
- stormbrew 13y ago
  Sarcasm? It's almost certainly more sustainable than trying to run them out of town or put them in prison.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- testing12341234 13y ago
  According to the original source[0], the solution has been in place since 2005, and had reduced the homeless population by 74% by 2012. The cost savings was about 5k per homeless person per year. "In 2005, Utah did a study that found the average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide case management services was only $11,000 per person." Obviously those two numbers don't account for the fact that even a newly homed person might continue to have some emergency services, and jail time. Yet, Utah continues the program and "... the state is on track to meet its goal by 2015", where that goal is to eliminate chronic homelessness.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    As Mr Deming once said, "In God We Trust. All others bring data." I'm impressed that the typical moral outrage of people being given "handouts" was short-circuited by rational data analysis, and a solution driven by said data. Kudos Utah!
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Indeed. What prevents other homeless people to "migrate" to Utah in order to benefit from that program ? If that's the case, the costs of the program would explode, and the savings would be gone. That's typically what happens. Not sure what they are doing to avoid that scenario.
  - ch4s3 13y ago
    Across the plains in their stagecoaches?
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Hitch-hiking.
      - ch4s3 13y ago
        is that still a thing? Also, how are they supposed to hear about it? And who picks up hitchhikers anymore? I mean, maybe a few people would do it, but I'm skeptical that it would ever be a problem.
        midas007 13y ago
        I've ran out of gas in Silicon Valley and had people pull over to offer a ride to the gas station. So folks are still awesome.
        TheCoelacanth 13y ago
        Yeah, but you probably don't look like a homeless person.
        aestra 13y ago
        Yes people still travel by hitchhiking. Yes it is possible to do so. I know someone who hitchhikes all the time.
        13y ago
- ams6110 13y ago
  I'm not sure there's enough history to know. Certainly counterexamples are easy to find: cities like Chicago tried providing huge amounts of housing to the poor and those projects were unmitigated disasters and have over the past decade or so been mostly torn down.
  - ch4s3 13y ago
    There was a good book the other year that covered the failure of Chicago public housing. Basically they demolished a lot of serviceable neighborhoods and shoved all of the displaced people into Concrete silos with people from all over the city, but not necessarily their old neighborhoods. Then, they never planned for or accounted for children and teenagers who roamed the buildings unsupervised while their parents were working or out looking for work. In the old neighborhoods, children played in the streets where any number of people could see them from store keepers to police or nosey old people. In the high rises, they were left completely to their own devices. Additionally, these high rises were built apart from other things in the city and not very accessible by foot. This meant that you couldn't walk from one to a grocery store, your church, your job, or anything really. So basically, Chicago built giant human warehouses to store all of the poors they had collected from around the city. Not hard to imagine why that failed. IMHO, Utah's program of housing the chronically homeless is totally different.
jostmey 13y ago
I personally believe that punishment should be severe, but that people need second chances. Perhaps many people end up homeless after making poor choices in life that lead to their predicament. But society must offer ways for everyone to redeem themselves. edit> Our society (The US) has become really good at punishing people, but is terrible at helping people back up.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  I'm not sure if it is just the wording or what, but I find it really wacky that you seem to be conflating poverty with crime. "Punishment"... for being poor and homeless?
  - scotty79 13y ago
    I've never seen it stated so clearly but I think that it's fairly common sentiment. If you made bad financial/job decisions in your life you deserve to not be provided with such basic necessities as food and shelter that we provide to even most serious criminals. Basically in public opinion not getting rich enough (to support yourself in economy of the time) is very serious crime and you should be punished for it with hunger and homelessness.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Punishment for what?
  - vidarh 13y ago
    For deigning to be poor, of course.
- throwaway34020 13y ago
  > Perhaps many people end up homeless after making poor choices in life that lead to their predicament I don't really have any data at hand, but a lot of people become homeless due to health issues, family conflicts, socio-economic problems (high unemployment rates, factory closings, lack of affordable housing), or even by being born poor or homeless... I believe some of those reasons are outside of the control of a single person.
inglor 13y ago
I wish this was possible here. People need to work for years before they can even think about buying a house. Sounds like a really good idea for a place like Utah - props to them.
ch4s3 13y ago
Ideology aside, it seems to be working better than any other state's solution and for less money. It seems pragmatic enough. I would be curious to see some numbers on success of people the enrolled in the program in 2005-6. I wish I could remember where I first read it, but from what I understand the average long term homeless person is a middle aged disabled man with either a mental illness or some form of substance dependency. Many are also veterans. It seems silly to tell that person to bootstrap. So for 11k a year for a roof and social worker vs. 16.65k for E.R. visits, jail, etc it seems like a no brainer. that's 5.65k in savings each per year.
- Mithaldu 13y ago
  There are also the quality of life improvements for the general populace of not having homeless on the street at all times and possibly also a measure of increased safety.
  - ch4s3 13y ago
    I'm respectfully dubious about the safety claim. Maybe perceived safety, but the last time I checked in my city (Baltimore) violent crimes weren't being perpetrated by the homeless, but rather the homeless are often victims. So, its safer for those people taken off the street. More importantly, it unburdens city ERs and police departments. So, ok, maybe there is an indirect safety effect from freed up police resources. Interesting how hairy and interconnected all of these complicated issues become when you dive into them.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  The "less money" part is not so obvious. The article does not go in details about that part, so it's very hard to say whether it's BS or not. A house needs frequent maintenance, renovation, cleaning, etc... and this costs a lot of money in the mid-long run, as facilities degrade. As for the ideology itself, I wonder how people who are working just to get enough money to survive and rent a place feel about this. I would be fine with the idea that a homeless person gets a home for a while, as long as they actively sort their life out and find a way to get to work again in a reasonable timeframe. Unless they are mentally ill, of course.
steve19 13y ago
This is not a whole lot different from public housing projects that are subsidize by the state, just more subsidized. The system works in a number of countries. As far as I know, it works. Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. Of course one of the costs of any state welfare system is the tragedy of the commons. For example people keeping houses they no longer need and people not maintaing the houses they are in. I would be surprised if the former social problems of slums are improved by bricks and mortar. I was in South Africa for a vacation recently. They are giving inhabitants of shanty towns small houses. Once they have moved them out they bulldoze the now-vacated land to build more houses. Someone I met asked me if I could give an old woman a ride to her government provided house at the edge of a shanty town she used to live in. She told me that the solar heating water system installed by the government on all these houses does not work. I could see her house, which could not have been more than 5 years old, was already decaying. I suspect corrupt builders/politicians cheaping out. It was also clear that some of the ever newer houses were quickly deteriorating and were blending into the slum across the small dirt road that separated them, mostly from lack of rudimentary maintenance. I could not help but wonder what those housing developments will look like in 10 years or 15 years and if the government will have to start rebuilding them at a huge expense.
- Crake 13y ago
  Probably, but it doesn't mean the idea is flawed--just the execution. Also Africa has a rather horrific corruption index, IIRC. I'd almost be surprised if things were planned ahead properly there. With some laudable exceptions, their governments and politicians tend to have a remarkable and depressing lack of foresight.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. This is a pretty variable part too, perhaps even more important than the actual "official" level of benefits. One of the bigger differences I've noticed moving from the U.S. to Denmark is not so much that the social welfare system is more generous (though that's true also), but especially that it's more proactive and less bureaucratic. If someone mentally ill is in need of support, qualifies for it, and cannot navigate the system themselves, a social worker will help them out. If they need somewhere to live and can't rent their own apartment, they'll get helped out there too. Someone will literally rent them an apartment, take them to it, make sure they settle in, and then check back later. In the U.S., none of that is true. I have some pretty recent experience with an American uncle who has advanced M.S. and has gotten basically no useful support. For a while he was unable to live alone, but officially the government didn't give a shit, so he did anyway, and injured himself regularly. He alternated between living in his apartment for a few weeks at a time, and ending up in the emergency room several times per month each time he injured himself. You might think: at this point, shouldn't he move to an assisted-living facility? It'd actually be more cost-effective, but nope, neither SSI Disability nor Medicare Disability cover that. SSI Disability will pay his rent to live at home, and Medicare Disability will pay his hospital visits, but neither will pay for him to move to somewhere that makes more sense. He would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members hadn't agreed to take over power of attorney, navigate the system on his behalf, and find money to pay for his rent. The U.S.'s joke of a stingy social system surely hasn't done anything on that front.
Crake 13y ago
I wish more states would implement this. It doesn't have to be a house, just an apartment. It doesn't even have to be a big one. Even just a single mattress in a small room or a studio with a kitchen is a huge quality of life improvement--and relatively inexpensive, as it seems they've found. Kicking them off of park benches is about as helpful as sloshing water around within the same bucket and then looking surprised that the contents haven't appreciably depreciated. Homeless are not going to just disappear. (Unless they die, which I suppose is what people like the sledgehammer guy in the article would prefer...)
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Just build capsules hotels, just like in Japan. That's cheap enough, and it has everything. But it only works if people can behave well in community...
  - Crake 13y ago
    Yeah, even something like that would work (maybe a little more spread out in places that aren't so urban). It's just appalling to me that so many people don't even have a place to stay out of the snow in this day and age. I wonder how many homeless you could house for a month for the cost of [insert luxurious iProduct here].
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Well accommodation should not be so expensive in the first place. That's why you get so many homeless people as well. Accommodation prices are completely up the roof for a number of reasons (some State-related), and there is no clear end in sight for this problem.
  - hammock 13y ago
    Hong Kong cages http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-rich-live-in-mansions-and-poor-live-in-cages-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-rich-live-in-mansio...
- hammock 13y ago
nostromo 13y ago
Basic income or a negative income tax would be a better solution. Giving people free homes creates a perverse incentive.
- Crake 13y ago
  Yeah! Who doesn't love the homeless bum taking up four seats on the subway? We can't let such a valuable part of urban scenery disappear!
  - Crito 13y ago
    'nostromo is advocating an alternative solution to homelessness, not advocating that we not address homelessness. The aim of his solution would still be to get people off of the streets. Your sarcasm, and comment in general, are misplaced.
    - Crake 13y ago
      People need to have it at least slightly together mentally to successfully rent a place, even if they have money. It seems like it would be more effective to provide the housing directly, given that inability to do this is part of why they are homeless in the first place (especially true in the case of mentally ill homeless). Many homeless have attributes that make them a turnoff to landlords, so even with a basic income, they might still end up on the streets.
      - Crito 13y ago
        That is a more reasonable response, since it actually addresses the idea. Anyway, there is certainly room for, and a need for, specialized social programs in a basic income scheme. However a major benefit of [basic income|negative income tax] is that they have the potential to prevent homelessness (particularly when coupled with universal healthcare). In theory basic income would greatly reduce the strain on specialized programs; the fewer people who become and stay homeless for long periods of time because of basic income, the fewer people need to be serviced by programs such as Utah's. Basic income treats an underlying cause (income inequality) instead of treating a symptom (people without homes). It may be necessary to stabilize the patient by treating the symptoms in the short term, but that only goes so far.
milesf 13y ago
I laughed at the following line: "But Utah’s results show that EVEN CONSERVATIVE STATES (emphasis mine) can solve problems like homelessness with decidedly progressive solutions." Why do you Americans have to make everything either liberal or conservative? Republican or Democrat? Life is about tension. If you want to hold a bird in your hand, you have to hold it loose enough that it isn't crushed, and tight enough that it doesn't fly away.
- coffeemug 13y ago
  > Why do you Americans have to make everything either liberal or conservative? Because there are different groups of people who have diametrically opposed views on how to solve many of the social problems modern America is facing. > Life is about tension. If you want to hold a bird in your hand, you have to hold it loose enough that it isn't crushed, and tight enough that it doesn't fly away. That's the problem with you Europeans. You refuse to make decisions, so you structure your society by averaging out all opinions. In the end, nobody's happy, and none of your problems are really solved :)
  - bjelkeman-again 13y ago
    Ok, I know there is a smiley at the end of that. But I also think that a lot if non-Europeans take that half serious. "In the end, nobody's happy" in Europe just isn't true. :) http://unsdsn.org/happiness/ http://unsdsn.org/happiness/ The report identifies the countries with the highest levels of happiness: 1.Denmark 2.Norway 3.Switzerland 4.Netherlands 5.Sweden
    - dagw 13y ago
      There is serious criticisms as to exactly what those studies measure. At best you can say that they measure contentment. That people from those countries are more content with their lives and have less significant complaints. That is quite different from happy in the joyous sense of the word.
      - 13y ago
crystaln 13y ago
This is yet another short term positive but long term disaster. 1) This creates an incentive to become "homeless." Now any kid can drop out of college, declare himself homeless, and get a free apartment. While it takes time for such incentives to kick in, this WILL happen. 2) This creates classic housing projects problems which inevitably turn into centers for crime, over time deteriorating neighborhoods and creating tension that is bad for everyone. Every generation, we forget how terribly housing projects work out. The solution is a basic income, possibly phased out slowly with earned income increases. This allows for a mobility and rational incentives housing projects can not provide. Public housing projects perpetuate poverty and crime and this will end no differently. It's great that some homeless people have a place to sleep today - just wait 10 or 20 years and see how it turns out. Look at projects and low income housing in every city across the world.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Why do you think every generation forgets, if it's so obvious as you say? Perhaps it is not, in fact, so clear.
- im_a_lawyer 13y ago
  The main reason housing projects failed in the first place is because they were located in mostly urban places and at that time cities were deteriorating fast with the transition to service economy and the rush by federal government to move all white people from the cities to the suburbs thereby moving all the capital. How exactly can affordable housing that's spread out throughout the city be bad? Affordable housing is not just for poor people you know?
- rXoX 13y ago
  Please provide evidence that providing housing incentivizes people to become homeless. Oh - wait - you don't have any. You - like many other hysterically inclined people, seem to think people like doing nothing all day. You - like many foolish Americans seem to think the 'natural' predisposition of human beings is laziness and sloth. But what you don't understand is that many people are actually compelled to do things by a sense of belonging, of shared goals and common purpose, and that sitting on one's backside all day doing 'nothing' is not something the vast majority of people want in their lives. Don't believe me? Then why do people volunteer?
Udo 13y ago
From a humanitarian point of view, it seems strange that the money-saving aspect is the deciding factor on this, as opposed to improving quality of life. But even so, even if it saves costs, people - including the prevailing winds on HN - are still against it. There seems to be a large number of opponents who'd rather spend a multiple of that housing and social care cost on jails and other measures designed to make sure these people stay away from society without any chance of coming back. I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. If a program exists that re-integrates a majority of these people, wouldn't it be worth the expense even if it cost more (which it apparently doesn't)?
- _delirium 13y ago
  > I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. Many Americans are sadists who think the poor deserve what's coming to them, and are actually willing to spend extra money to ensure it comes to them.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    See also: just-world hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
  - Udo 13y ago
    The word "perverse" has been used on this thread and on other occasions to describe social improvement measures. I'm not sure all these people here are sadists, there must be something else at work. As far as I can tell the standard argument seems to be that these homeless aren't productive members of society so it somehow makes sense to put resources into actively punishing them for it and making sure the conditions are reinforced that allowed them to become antisocials in the first place. Yet, at the same time, there are a lot of true parasites in society who actually get paid a lot, and who we kind of worship. In the end, you might be right. But it's not a satisfying explanation.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      >The word "perverse" has been used on this thread Only in the phrase 'perverse incentive'. Which simply means a system has a high potential for unintended consequences / being gamed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the basic idea is noble.
ry0ohki 13y ago
The key isn't so much the home but the social workers they provide. Most homeless people are not just folks like you and I who happened to be out of work a little longer, they are people with various mental illnesses and addictions. It's no coincidence that homelessness skyrocketed when deinstitutionalisation started.
michaelrhansen 13y ago
This would be an awesome project to contribute coding skills to - imagine a platform managing this type of program and helping redistribute that knowledge back out to the world.
jfoster 13y ago
I think the one thing that nearly everyone can agree on is that all current welfare systems are quite broken. In Australia, welfare comes in the form of money being deposited into your bank account. Many on welfare claim that it isn't enough to live off properly (probably true) and many not on welfare claim that the system is being abused by people who shouldn't be on it, which is also probably true. I'd like to see a country that experiments with giving people the most basic essentials that they need to get out of welfare. Things like temporary accommodation, basic food, etc. That way there would be no point to abusing it, and no one can claim it isn't sufficient for basic living. I imagine that it would also result in cost savings for the government since they would be buying in bulk rather than distributing cash for those on welfare to spend individually. There's still problems with this approach, but I think it might strike a better balance than current systems.
- hamburglar 13y ago
  > Many on welfare claim that it isn't enough to live off properly (probably true) and many not on welfare claim that the system is being abused by people who shouldn't be on it, which is also probably true. I think one of the primary differences between the (US) liberal and conservative mentality with respect to welfare is that, while everyone acknowledges that the system isn't going to be perfect, the liberals are incensed by false negatives (the criteria are erroneously set such that someone who truly needs assistance won't get it) whereas the conservatives are incensed by false positives (the criteria are erroneously set such that someone who doesn't deserve assistance and is gaming the system will get it). In other words, both sides acknowledge that the criteria for "deserving" assistance are going to be flawed, they just differ on whose side they'd like to err on. I really think that once you realize this, you can better clarify your own priorities on this issue and come up with a more nuanced position than the usual "you're a monster" / "you're a bleeding heart" blather.
- midas007 13y ago
  So focusing more on the essentials including: healthcare, housing, food, transportation, education, motivation and a little cash
desireco42 13y ago
I am really ... shocked I guess, how can you not like this. I was not born in the US, but in 10 yrs I lived here (and liking it obviously), I was always bothered that such a great country can have so many homeless and destitute people. I can write about this pages and pages... Studies show, once someone ends on the street, he never comes back up, this is the only way for many of those to get themselves up. I am even liking numbers about how much it costs to care about homeless vs. helping them. Seriously, this costs little and helps a great deal to people who genuinely need it.
GigabyteCoin 13y ago
Are the actually ending homelessness for good? Or are they placing a bandaid on the problem and possibly making things worse? Hawaii has a homeless problem because it is a very forgiving place for the homeless to live, mainly the favorable temperature imho. Vancouver/Victoria B.C. have a much larger visible homeless population than Toronto. Again, because the winter temperatures won't kill you in Vancouver, buy they very well could in Toronto. In time, once "word of the street" gets out that Utah is giving away free houses to homeless people whether they follow their suggested rules of living or not... I think we might be seeing a few more thumbs on the highway with signs for Salt Lake City.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jff 13y ago
  SLC probably has the advantage that your average homeless drunk has a much harder time getting booze.
  - midas007 13y ago
    Is booze still only sold in state-sanctioned stores?
    - GigabyteCoin 13y ago
      I went to a rodeo in St. George, Utah last year. It was sponsored by budweiser. Yet, not a single drop of beer or any alcohol was sold on site. Utah sure is an interesting place to be.
lafar6502 13y ago
Does the state also give jobs or money so they can afford these homes?
systematical 13y ago
Terrible grammar in this article
ommunist 13y ago
Yay! There is even place in this budget to give every homeless a Mac and subscription to codeschool.com. Guys, do it. Utah will become the next Silicon Valley.

177 points by jamesbritt 13y ago

wyager 13y ago

Seems like a sustainable permanent solution...

stormbrew 13y ago
Sarcasm? It's almost certainly more sustainable than trying to run them out of town or put them in prison.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
testing12341234 13y ago
According to the original source[0], the solution has been in place since 2005, and had reduced the homeless population by 74% by 2012. The cost savings was about 5k per homeless person per year. "In 2005, Utah did a study that found the average annual cost for emergency services and jail time for each chronically homeless person was $16,670. The cost to house them and provide case management services was only $11,000 per person." Obviously those two numbers don't account for the fact that even a newly homed person might continue to have some emergency services, and jail time. Yet, Utah continues the program and "... the state is on track to meet its goal by 2015", where that goal is to eliminate chronic homelessness.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  As Mr Deming once said, "In God We Trust. All others bring data." I'm impressed that the typical moral outrage of people being given "handouts" was short-circuited by rational data analysis, and a solution driven by said data. Kudos Utah!
ekianjo 13y ago
Indeed. What prevents other homeless people to "migrate" to Utah in order to benefit from that program ? If that's the case, the costs of the program would explode, and the savings would be gone. That's typically what happens. Not sure what they are doing to avoid that scenario.
- ch4s3 13y ago
  Across the plains in their stagecoaches?
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Hitch-hiking.
    - ch4s3 13y ago
      is that still a thing? Also, how are they supposed to hear about it? And who picks up hitchhikers anymore? I mean, maybe a few people would do it, but I'm skeptical that it would ever be a problem.
      - midas007 13y ago
        I've ran out of gas in Silicon Valley and had people pull over to offer a ride to the gas station. So folks are still awesome.
        TheCoelacanth 13y ago
        Yeah, but you probably don't look like a homeless person.
      - aestra 13y ago
        Yes people still travel by hitchhiking. Yes it is possible to do so. I know someone who hitchhikes all the time.
        13y ago
ams6110 13y ago
I'm not sure there's enough history to know. Certainly counterexamples are easy to find: cities like Chicago tried providing huge amounts of housing to the poor and those projects were unmitigated disasters and have over the past decade or so been mostly torn down.
- ch4s3 13y ago
  There was a good book the other year that covered the failure of Chicago public housing. Basically they demolished a lot of serviceable neighborhoods and shoved all of the displaced people into Concrete silos with people from all over the city, but not necessarily their old neighborhoods. Then, they never planned for or accounted for children and teenagers who roamed the buildings unsupervised while their parents were working or out looking for work. In the old neighborhoods, children played in the streets where any number of people could see them from store keepers to police or nosey old people. In the high rises, they were left completely to their own devices. Additionally, these high rises were built apart from other things in the city and not very accessible by foot. This meant that you couldn't walk from one to a grocery store, your church, your job, or anything really. So basically, Chicago built giant human warehouses to store all of the poors they had collected from around the city. Not hard to imagine why that failed. IMHO, Utah's program of housing the chronically homeless is totally different.

jostmey 13y ago

I personally believe that punishment should be severe, but that people need second chances. Perhaps many people end up homeless after making poor choices in life that lead to their predicament. But society must offer ways for everyone to redeem themselves. edit> Our society (The US) has become really good at punishing people, but is terrible at helping people back up.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
georgemcbay 13y ago
I'm not sure if it is just the wording or what, but I find it really wacky that you seem to be conflating poverty with crime. "Punishment"... for being poor and homeless?
- scotty79 13y ago
  I've never seen it stated so clearly but I think that it's fairly common sentiment. If you made bad financial/job decisions in your life you deserve to not be provided with such basic necessities as food and shelter that we provide to even most serious criminals. Basically in public opinion not getting rich enough (to support yourself in economy of the time) is very serious crime and you should be punished for it with hunger and homelessness.
gnaritas 13y ago
Punishment for what?
- vidarh 13y ago
  For deigning to be poor, of course.
throwaway34020 13y ago
> Perhaps many people end up homeless after making poor choices in life that lead to their predicament I don't really have any data at hand, but a lot of people become homeless due to health issues, family conflicts, socio-economic problems (high unemployment rates, factory closings, lack of affordable housing), or even by being born poor or homeless... I believe some of those reasons are outside of the control of a single person.

inglor 13y ago

I wish this was possible here. People need to work for years before they can even think about buying a house. Sounds like a really good idea for a place like Utah - props to them.

ch4s3 13y ago

Ideology aside, it seems to be working better than any other state's solution and for less money. It seems pragmatic enough. I would be curious to see some numbers on success of people the enrolled in the program in 2005-6. I wish I could remember where I first read it, but from what I understand the average long term homeless person is a middle aged disabled man with either a mental illness or some form of substance dependency. Many are also veterans. It seems silly to tell that person to bootstrap. So for 11k a year for a roof and social worker vs. 16.65k for E.R. visits, jail, etc it seems like a no brainer. that's 5.65k in savings each per year.

Mithaldu 13y ago
There are also the quality of life improvements for the general populace of not having homeless on the street at all times and possibly also a measure of increased safety.
- ch4s3 13y ago
  I'm respectfully dubious about the safety claim. Maybe perceived safety, but the last time I checked in my city (Baltimore) violent crimes weren't being perpetrated by the homeless, but rather the homeless are often victims. So, its safer for those people taken off the street. More importantly, it unburdens city ERs and police departments. So, ok, maybe there is an indirect safety effect from freed up police resources. Interesting how hairy and interconnected all of these complicated issues become when you dive into them.
ekianjo 13y ago
The "less money" part is not so obvious. The article does not go in details about that part, so it's very hard to say whether it's BS or not. A house needs frequent maintenance, renovation, cleaning, etc... and this costs a lot of money in the mid-long run, as facilities degrade. As for the ideology itself, I wonder how people who are working just to get enough money to survive and rent a place feel about this. I would be fine with the idea that a homeless person gets a home for a while, as long as they actively sort their life out and find a way to get to work again in a reasonable timeframe. Unless they are mentally ill, of course.

steve19 13y ago

This is not a whole lot different from public housing projects that are subsidize by the state, just more subsidized. The system works in a number of countries. As far as I know, it works. Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. Of course one of the costs of any state welfare system is the tragedy of the commons. For example people keeping houses they no longer need and people not maintaing the houses they are in. I would be surprised if the former social problems of slums are improved by bricks and mortar. I was in South Africa for a vacation recently. They are giving inhabitants of shanty towns small houses. Once they have moved them out they bulldoze the now-vacated land to build more houses. Someone I met asked me if I could give an old woman a ride to her government provided house at the edge of a shanty town she used to live in. She told me that the solar heating water system installed by the government on all these houses does not work. I could see her house, which could not have been more than 5 years old, was already decaying. I suspect corrupt builders/politicians cheaping out. It was also clear that some of the ever newer houses were quickly deteriorating and were blending into the slum across the small dirt road that separated them, mostly from lack of rudimentary maintenance. I could not help but wonder what those housing developments will look like in 10 years or 15 years and if the government will have to start rebuilding them at a huge expense.

Crake 13y ago
Probably, but it doesn't mean the idea is flawed--just the execution. Also Africa has a rather horrific corruption index, IIRC. I'd almost be surprised if things were planned ahead properly there. With some laudable exceptions, their governments and politicians tend to have a remarkable and depressing lack of foresight.
_delirium 13y ago
Eventually the only people on the street are people who are unable to cope/deal with the system and who fall through the cracks, such as mentally ill. This is a pretty variable part too, perhaps even more important than the actual "official" level of benefits. One of the bigger differences I've noticed moving from the U.S. to Denmark is not so much that the social welfare system is more generous (though that's true also), but especially that it's more proactive and less bureaucratic. If someone mentally ill is in need of support, qualifies for it, and cannot navigate the system themselves, a social worker will help them out. If they need somewhere to live and can't rent their own apartment, they'll get helped out there too. Someone will literally rent them an apartment, take them to it, make sure they settle in, and then check back later. In the U.S., none of that is true. I have some pretty recent experience with an American uncle who has advanced M.S. and has gotten basically no useful support. For a while he was unable to live alone, but officially the government didn't give a shit, so he did anyway, and injured himself regularly. He alternated between living in his apartment for a few weeks at a time, and ending up in the emergency room several times per month each time he injured himself. You might think: at this point, shouldn't he move to an assisted-living facility? It'd actually be more cost-effective, but nope, neither SSI Disability nor Medicare Disability cover that. SSI Disability will pay his rent to live at home, and Medicare Disability will pay his hospital visits, but neither will pay for him to move to somewhere that makes more sense. He would probably have ended up homeless or dead if some family members hadn't agreed to take over power of attorney, navigate the system on his behalf, and find money to pay for his rent. The U.S.'s joke of a stingy social system surely hasn't done anything on that front.

Crake 13y ago

I wish more states would implement this. It doesn't have to be a house, just an apartment. It doesn't even have to be a big one. Even just a single mattress in a small room or a studio with a kitchen is a huge quality of life improvement--and relatively inexpensive, as it seems they've found. Kicking them off of park benches is about as helpful as sloshing water around within the same bucket and then looking surprised that the contents haven't appreciably depreciated. Homeless are not going to just disappear. (Unless they die, which I suppose is what people like the sledgehammer guy in the article would prefer...)

ekianjo 13y ago
Just build capsules hotels, just like in Japan. That's cheap enough, and it has everything. But it only works if people can behave well in community...
- Crake 13y ago
  Yeah, even something like that would work (maybe a little more spread out in places that aren't so urban). It's just appalling to me that so many people don't even have a place to stay out of the snow in this day and age. I wonder how many homeless you could house for a month for the cost of [insert luxurious iProduct here].
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Well accommodation should not be so expensive in the first place. That's why you get so many homeless people as well. Accommodation prices are completely up the roof for a number of reasons (some State-related), and there is no clear end in sight for this problem.
- hammock 13y ago
  Hong Kong cages http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-rich-live-in-mansions-and-poor-live-in-cages-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong-rich-live-in-mansio...
hammock 13y ago

nostromo 13y ago

Basic income or a negative income tax would be a better solution. Giving people free homes creates a perverse incentive.

Crake 13y ago
Yeah! Who doesn't love the homeless bum taking up four seats on the subway? We can't let such a valuable part of urban scenery disappear!
- Crito 13y ago
  'nostromo is advocating an alternative solution to homelessness, not advocating that we not address homelessness. The aim of his solution would still be to get people off of the streets. Your sarcasm, and comment in general, are misplaced.
  - Crake 13y ago
    People need to have it at least slightly together mentally to successfully rent a place, even if they have money. It seems like it would be more effective to provide the housing directly, given that inability to do this is part of why they are homeless in the first place (especially true in the case of mentally ill homeless). Many homeless have attributes that make them a turnoff to landlords, so even with a basic income, they might still end up on the streets.
    - Crito 13y ago
      That is a more reasonable response, since it actually addresses the idea. Anyway, there is certainly room for, and a need for, specialized social programs in a basic income scheme. However a major benefit of [basic income|negative income tax] is that they have the potential to prevent homelessness (particularly when coupled with universal healthcare). In theory basic income would greatly reduce the strain on specialized programs; the fewer people who become and stay homeless for long periods of time because of basic income, the fewer people need to be serviced by programs such as Utah's. Basic income treats an underlying cause (income inequality) instead of treating a symptom (people without homes). It may be necessary to stabilize the patient by treating the symptoms in the short term, but that only goes so far.

milesf 13y ago

I laughed at the following line: "But Utah’s results show that EVEN CONSERVATIVE STATES (emphasis mine) can solve problems like homelessness with decidedly progressive solutions." Why do you Americans have to make everything either liberal or conservative? Republican or Democrat? Life is about tension. If you want to hold a bird in your hand, you have to hold it loose enough that it isn't crushed, and tight enough that it doesn't fly away.

coffeemug 13y ago
> Why do you Americans have to make everything either liberal or conservative? Because there are different groups of people who have diametrically opposed views on how to solve many of the social problems modern America is facing. > Life is about tension. If you want to hold a bird in your hand, you have to hold it loose enough that it isn't crushed, and tight enough that it doesn't fly away. That's the problem with you Europeans. You refuse to make decisions, so you structure your society by averaging out all opinions. In the end, nobody's happy, and none of your problems are really solved :)
- bjelkeman-again 13y ago
  Ok, I know there is a smiley at the end of that. But I also think that a lot if non-Europeans take that half serious. "In the end, nobody's happy" in Europe just isn't true. :) http://unsdsn.org/happiness/ http://unsdsn.org/happiness/ The report identifies the countries with the highest levels of happiness: 1.Denmark 2.Norway 3.Switzerland 4.Netherlands 5.Sweden
  - dagw 13y ago
    There is serious criticisms as to exactly what those studies measure. At best you can say that they measure contentment. That people from those countries are more content with their lives and have less significant complaints. That is quite different from happy in the joyous sense of the word.
    - 13y ago

crystaln 13y ago

This is yet another short term positive but long term disaster. 1) This creates an incentive to become "homeless." Now any kid can drop out of college, declare himself homeless, and get a free apartment. While it takes time for such incentives to kick in, this WILL happen. 2) This creates classic housing projects problems which inevitably turn into centers for crime, over time deteriorating neighborhoods and creating tension that is bad for everyone. Every generation, we forget how terribly housing projects work out. The solution is a basic income, possibly phased out slowly with earned income increases. This allows for a mobility and rational incentives housing projects can not provide. Public housing projects perpetuate poverty and crime and this will end no differently. It's great that some homeless people have a place to sleep today - just wait 10 or 20 years and see how it turns out. Look at projects and low income housing in every city across the world.

mikeash 13y ago
Why do you think every generation forgets, if it's so obvious as you say? Perhaps it is not, in fact, so clear.
im_a_lawyer 13y ago
The main reason housing projects failed in the first place is because they were located in mostly urban places and at that time cities were deteriorating fast with the transition to service economy and the rush by federal government to move all white people from the cities to the suburbs thereby moving all the capital. How exactly can affordable housing that's spread out throughout the city be bad? Affordable housing is not just for poor people you know?
rXoX 13y ago
Please provide evidence that providing housing incentivizes people to become homeless. Oh - wait - you don't have any. You - like many other hysterically inclined people, seem to think people like doing nothing all day. You - like many foolish Americans seem to think the 'natural' predisposition of human beings is laziness and sloth. But what you don't understand is that many people are actually compelled to do things by a sense of belonging, of shared goals and common purpose, and that sitting on one's backside all day doing 'nothing' is not something the vast majority of people want in their lives. Don't believe me? Then why do people volunteer?

Udo 13y ago

From a humanitarian point of view, it seems strange that the money-saving aspect is the deciding factor on this, as opposed to improving quality of life. But even so, even if it saves costs, people - including the prevailing winds on HN - are still against it. There seems to be a large number of opponents who'd rather spend a multiple of that housing and social care cost on jails and other measures designed to make sure these people stay away from society without any chance of coming back. I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. If a program exists that re-integrates a majority of these people, wouldn't it be worth the expense even if it cost more (which it apparently doesn't)?

_delirium 13y ago
> I'd genuinely be interested to hear why. Many Americans are sadists who think the poor deserve what's coming to them, and are actually willing to spend extra money to ensure it comes to them.
- mikeash 13y ago
  See also: just-world hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
- Udo 13y ago
  The word "perverse" has been used on this thread and on other occasions to describe social improvement measures. I'm not sure all these people here are sadists, there must be something else at work. As far as I can tell the standard argument seems to be that these homeless aren't productive members of society so it somehow makes sense to put resources into actively punishing them for it and making sure the conditions are reinforced that allowed them to become antisocials in the first place. Yet, at the same time, there are a lot of true parasites in society who actually get paid a lot, and who we kind of worship. In the end, you might be right. But it's not a satisfying explanation.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    >The word "perverse" has been used on this thread Only in the phrase 'perverse incentive'. Which simply means a system has a high potential for unintended consequences / being gamed. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the basic idea is noble.

ry0ohki 13y ago

The key isn't so much the home but the social workers they provide. Most homeless people are not just folks like you and I who happened to be out of work a little longer, they are people with various mental illnesses and addictions. It's no coincidence that homelessness skyrocketed when deinstitutionalisation started.

michaelrhansen 13y ago

This would be an awesome project to contribute coding skills to - imagine a platform managing this type of program and helping redistribute that knowledge back out to the world.

jfoster 13y ago

I think the one thing that nearly everyone can agree on is that all current welfare systems are quite broken. In Australia, welfare comes in the form of money being deposited into your bank account. Many on welfare claim that it isn't enough to live off properly (probably true) and many not on welfare claim that the system is being abused by people who shouldn't be on it, which is also probably true. I'd like to see a country that experiments with giving people the most basic essentials that they need to get out of welfare. Things like temporary accommodation, basic food, etc. That way there would be no point to abusing it, and no one can claim it isn't sufficient for basic living. I imagine that it would also result in cost savings for the government since they would be buying in bulk rather than distributing cash for those on welfare to spend individually. There's still problems with this approach, but I think it might strike a better balance than current systems.

hamburglar 13y ago
> Many on welfare claim that it isn't enough to live off properly (probably true) and many not on welfare claim that the system is being abused by people who shouldn't be on it, which is also probably true. I think one of the primary differences between the (US) liberal and conservative mentality with respect to welfare is that, while everyone acknowledges that the system isn't going to be perfect, the liberals are incensed by false negatives (the criteria are erroneously set such that someone who truly needs assistance won't get it) whereas the conservatives are incensed by false positives (the criteria are erroneously set such that someone who doesn't deserve assistance and is gaming the system will get it). In other words, both sides acknowledge that the criteria for "deserving" assistance are going to be flawed, they just differ on whose side they'd like to err on. I really think that once you realize this, you can better clarify your own priorities on this issue and come up with a more nuanced position than the usual "you're a monster" / "you're a bleeding heart" blather.
midas007 13y ago
So focusing more on the essentials including: healthcare, housing, food, transportation, education, motivation and a little cash

desireco42 13y ago

I am really ... shocked I guess, how can you not like this. I was not born in the US, but in 10 yrs I lived here (and liking it obviously), I was always bothered that such a great country can have so many homeless and destitute people. I can write about this pages and pages... Studies show, once someone ends on the street, he never comes back up, this is the only way for many of those to get themselves up. I am even liking numbers about how much it costs to care about homeless vs. helping them. Seriously, this costs little and helps a great deal to people who genuinely need it.

GigabyteCoin 13y ago

Are the actually ending homelessness for good? Or are they placing a bandaid on the problem and possibly making things worse? Hawaii has a homeless problem because it is a very forgiving place for the homeless to live, mainly the favorable temperature imho. Vancouver/Victoria B.C. have a much larger visible homeless population than Toronto. Again, because the winter temperatures won't kill you in Vancouver, buy they very well could in Toronto. In time, once "word of the street" gets out that Utah is giving away free houses to homeless people whether they follow their suggested rules of living or not... I think we might be seeing a few more thumbs on the highway with signs for Salt Lake City.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jff 13y ago
SLC probably has the advantage that your average homeless drunk has a much harder time getting booze.
- midas007 13y ago
  Is booze still only sold in state-sanctioned stores?
  - GigabyteCoin 13y ago
    I went to a rodeo in St. George, Utah last year. It was sponsored by budweiser. Yet, not a single drop of beer or any alcohol was sold on site. Utah sure is an interesting place to be.

lafar6502 13y ago

Does the state also give jobs or money so they can afford these homes?

systematical 13y ago

Terrible grammar in this article

ommunist 13y ago

Yay! There is even place in this budget to give every homeless a Mac and subscription to codeschool.com. Guys, do it. Utah will become the next Silicon Valley.