Issue 524 Homeless and the homes first approach February 10, 2015

So there is another (and possibly counter intuitive) approach to getting the homeless off the streets and into homes.  It is called the homes first approach, and I’m going to tell you how it works.  (Original source is "The Economist" November 15th 2014 issue).

How it works:  It is basically no strings attached housing for the poor.  Most homeless are apparently mentally ill, alcoholic or drug addicted with many possibly being all three.  The original staircase method required the homeless to quit drinking and doing drugs before putting them into emergency and temporary housing from which they were deemed if they were eligible to be housed.  But according to the article, this staircase approach had many refusing to sign up, and less than half make it all the way to subsidized housing.   

However, the homes first approach that was come up with by Sam Tsemberis, a professor of psychiatry at New York University, in 1992 which was called Pathways to Housing is different. To successfully facilitate and impact the lives of the homeless, those at most risk of dying in the street are put to the top of the list for finding homes.  From there the homeless were given homes in cheap/poor districts.  Medical care, treatment for addiction, learning to cook, learning to pay bills and other services were offered to these individuals, but none of these was required.  After 5 years 88% of the people in the program remained housed.  Since then it has been copied around the world in 200 American cities and in Denmark, Finland, while being tried out in Japan, Australia and Canada.  This international attention has resulted in it being called the "homes first: approach.  

Why it actually saves money:  Apparently long term rough sleepers "...are 15% of all homeless people, but use more than half of all public spending including on services, medical care, detox and jail."  In Denver, Colorado, its 300 heavy utilizers costs taxpayers $37,000 each a year, but putting them into a home with support makes them cost half as much.   The Canadian city of Calgary (the first Canadian city to use the program) saw an average savings of $30,000 per person in its more acute cases.  And the savings continue with the least complex cases costing even less or nothing at all depending on the support needs.  This also allows public services to be freed up for what they are supposed to do, like police officers fighting crime rather than arresting homeless people for trespassing or being a public nuisance.

Conclusion:  Well it is overall a successful program based on what the article presented.  However, while it has been shown to improve the former homeless individual’s quality of life and even their ability to function in a community, many still continue to abuse alcohol, drugs and remain unemployable according to studies. Also, finding cheap homes is still an issue as rents and prices increase with the only possible solution being a planned public housing development.   However, this saving money and saving lives seems to be worth the cost. So what do you think, as it saves money and helps the poor at the same time?  Is it worth the effort?  I seem to think so based on the evidence given in the article.