4 ms·

I don't see it. $100k per person costs drop to $20k per person costs, they should want to scale this as fast as they can. They may have had to invest a little u

I don't see it. $100k per person costs drop to $20k per person costs, they should want to scale this as fast as they can. They may have had to invest a little up front, or redistribute some of the costs back to where the funding came from before, but it sounds like this scales spectacularly and is a huge win all around.

powertower 11y ago
Estimates of exogenous costs, and the implied savings, are usually highly uncorrelated to any actual savings of costs. If this was as you claim, then an entire nation or larger region would not have to chip in to pay for a program of a small city. That small city would just simply balance its own books and ledgers - since they are saving 100K with a 20K investment!
- ColinDabritz 11y ago
  Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm not sure that I agree. This is more than just some people estimating off the cuff, there are many studies in the US, and more instances and evidence world wide. Fortunately it's an experiment that is being run, so we will be able to see more hard data in the coming years. http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/cost_of_homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/cost_of_homelessness http://usich.gov/usich_resources/research_and_evaluation/cost_effectiveness_studies http://usich.gov/usich_resources/research_and_evaluation/cos... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/... The biggest costs are pretty concrete. They are 'after the fact' emergency services like emergency room hospital care (vs cheaper preventative care) and jail (instead of housing). It's clear that these costs are higher for the homeless than average, but that leaves the question of housing changing that for this specific group of people (e.g. maybe they are just inherently more likely to end up in an emergency room) which is a valid question. The evidence is that people with housing are more able to get the help they need earlier (such as preventative care), and are less likely to commit crimes out of desperation, because they have housing. This leads to a much lower rate of using these expensive services, leading to a clearly lower cost to provide housing vs concrete cost of emergency services. That's why I believe this approach is both humane and effective. This is why I believe housing first is better for everyone.
  - abandonliberty 11y ago
    I agree with you: the costs of a homeless person are reduced when we house them. There's a glut of evidence to support this. What I haven't yet seen is evidence of the impact on society at large. What is the impact on society, and those who have worked hard for their housing, financially and psychologically? While it may make financial sense, humans are emotional creatures very sensitive to perceived fairness. In the ultimatum game, people refuse 'unfair' offers to their own detriment. [0] Do the number of people on these services grow or shrink over time? Free housing enhances the welfare trap[1], where people may be better off not working. It is not a silver bullet and needs to be paired with appropriate policy to be effective. Britain reduced their welfare trap by raising the first tax bracket, fired half a million government employees, and now has their highest employment rate in history.[2] [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game#Experimental_results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game#Experimental_res... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap [2]http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9475222/the-coalitions-jobs-record-is-miraculous-why-wont-they-talk-about-it/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9475222/the-coalitions-j...
bayesianhorse 11y ago
A city has to come up with the money up front and the effectiveness is not that easily proven to average voters.

powertower 11y ago

Estimates of exogenous costs, and the implied savings, are usually highly uncorrelated to any actual savings of costs. If this was as you claim, then an entire nation or larger region would not have to chip in to pay for a program of a small city. That small city would just simply balance its own books and ledgers - since they are saving 100K with a 20K investment!

ColinDabritz 11y ago
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I'm not sure that I agree. This is more than just some people estimating off the cuff, there are many studies in the US, and more instances and evidence world wide. Fortunately it's an experiment that is being run, so we will be able to see more hard data in the coming years. http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/cost_of_homelessness http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/cost_of_homelessness http://usich.gov/usich_resources/research_and_evaluation/cost_effectiveness_studies http://usich.gov/usich_resources/research_and_evaluation/cos... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/... The biggest costs are pretty concrete. They are 'after the fact' emergency services like emergency room hospital care (vs cheaper preventative care) and jail (instead of housing). It's clear that these costs are higher for the homeless than average, but that leaves the question of housing changing that for this specific group of people (e.g. maybe they are just inherently more likely to end up in an emergency room) which is a valid question. The evidence is that people with housing are more able to get the help they need earlier (such as preventative care), and are less likely to commit crimes out of desperation, because they have housing. This leads to a much lower rate of using these expensive services, leading to a clearly lower cost to provide housing vs concrete cost of emergency services. That's why I believe this approach is both humane and effective. This is why I believe housing first is better for everyone.
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  I agree with you: the costs of a homeless person are reduced when we house them. There's a glut of evidence to support this. What I haven't yet seen is evidence of the impact on society at large. What is the impact on society, and those who have worked hard for their housing, financially and psychologically? While it may make financial sense, humans are emotional creatures very sensitive to perceived fairness. In the ultimatum game, people refuse 'unfair' offers to their own detriment. [0] Do the number of people on these services grow or shrink over time? Free housing enhances the welfare trap[1], where people may be better off not working. It is not a silver bullet and needs to be paired with appropriate policy to be effective. Britain reduced their welfare trap by raising the first tax bracket, fired half a million government employees, and now has their highest employment rate in history.[2] [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game#Experimental_results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game#Experimental_res... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap [2]http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9475222/the-coalitions-jobs-record-is-miraculous-why-wont-they-talk-about-it/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9475222/the-coalitions-j...

bayesianhorse 11y ago

A city has to come up with the money up front and the effectiveness is not that easily proven to average voters.