Utah cuts costs and homelessness rates by giving people homes

[Rob L 3,811]

Utah adopted a pretty novel concept to end chronic homelessness this year: They gave homeless people homes. It’s a solution that might sound too simple, but it’s working. The program, called “Housing First,” has origins in New York. Utah started its own pilot of the program in 2005 with 17 people. The state took them off the street and put them into housing for 22 months. After the state saw all 17 people remained housed and stable during that time, the project was expanded. To date, the rate of chronic homelessness in Utah has dropped 72 percent since the program’s inception.

Some of the people are housed in regular apartments with landlords and others are placed in renovated buildings, like old hotels, that have been redesigned as permanent housing. Though the individuals do not have regular rent, the housing is still not entirely free: A person must pay 30 percent of his or her income each month if he or she has a job, or $50 per month if the person is unemployed.

But perhaps most surprising is the fact that the entire system is much cheaper than leaving homeless people on the streets. Chronically homeless individuals can cost a community $20,000-$40,000 a year on the street with emergency services, jail time, and police time. When they are housed, the cost is $8,000-$9,000 per person, including case management.

http://fusion.net/video/37003/utah-cuts-costs-and-homelessness-rates-by-giving-people-homes/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyQcXfslc6c&feature=player_embedded

[decocker 7,198]

Utah adopted a pretty novel concept to end chronic homelessness this year: They gave homeless people homes. It’s a solution that might sound too simple, but it’s working. The program, called “Housing First,” has origins in New York. Utah started its own pilot of the program in 2005 with 17 people. The state took them off the street and put them into housing for 22 months. After the state saw all 17 people remained housed and stable during that time, the project was expanded. To date, the rate of chronic homelessness in Utah has dropped 72 percent since the program’s inception.

Some of the people are housed in regular apartments with landlords and others are placed in renovated buildings, like old hotels, that have been redesigned as permanent housing. Though the individuals do not have regular rent, the housing is still not entirely free: A person must pay 30 percent of his or her income each month if he or she has a job, or $50 per month if the person is unemployed.

But perhaps most surprising is the fact that the entire system is much cheaper than leaving homeless people on the streets. Chronically homeless individuals can cost a community $20,000-$40,000 a year on the street with emergency services, jail time, and police time. When they are housed, the cost is $8,000-$9,000 per person, including case management.

http://fusion.net/video/37003/utah-cuts-costs-and-homelessness-rates-by-giving-people-homes/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyQcXfslc6c&feature=player_embedded

this is smart.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Conservatives step up to the plate, and make things happen, something Liberals consistently fail to do.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-answer-to-homelessness/

[luckytxn 2,263]

Bus tickets to California are cheaper though.

[Rob L 3,811]

Conservatives step up to the plate, and make things happen, something Liberals consistently fail to do.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-answer-to-homelessness/

Is this about labels like left or right or finding what form of government works best?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is this about labels like left or right or finding what form of government works best?

Surprisingly, we already know the answer to the latter.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This comes from the Jon Huntsman kind of conservatism. The smart kind. Unfortunately, it's not the kind that governs the Republican party today.

[Rob L 3,811]

Bus tickets to California are cheaper though.

That's the point of the article, it isn't cheaper. Governments have tried that for years.

[unsmiley 111]

^{Better to give someone even a "make work" job, and have them pay their own rent, than to give away homes. But this society is hell bent on giving away the store for nothing in return.}

That's the point of the article, it isn't cheaper. Governments have tried that for years.

Being cheaper is not always better, or in society's best interest.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

^{Better to give someone even a "make work" job, and have them pay their own rent, than to give away homes. But this society is hell bent on giving away the store for nothing in return.}

Being cheaper is not always better, or in society's best interest.

The canned response from the talk radio devotees.

Look at the data and leave silly ideologies out of it.

[Rob L 3,811]

^{Better to give someone even a "make work" job, and have them pay their own rent, than to give away homes. But this society is hell bent on giving away the store for nothing in return.}

Being cheaper is not always better, or in society's best interest.

The Government saw a reduction in costs for jails and emergency services

A decrease in homelessness

An increase in these folk returning to the job market

An increase in taxpayers paying into the system

An increase in quality of life for these folks

These people have dignity and self esteem returned to them and are in fact giving something in return.

By what measure is this program net failure?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I love it when a Republican plan comes together.

[Rob L 3,811]

I love it when a Republican plan comes together.

I love it when government is successful in improving , delivering and thinking outside their box. As the noted Republican and former CEO of GE was fond of quoting noted Democratic President Harry Truman "

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

If the parties focused on delivering services and not making each other look bad, the people of this country would be better off.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If the parties focused on delivering services and not making each other look bad, the people of this country would be better off.

You mean, Democrats actually started doing something useful, instead of whining about the Republicans? What a novel idea! Bring that up at your next party meeting.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, because Republicans have never whined about Democrats instead of doing something useful. Oh, wait. That's actually all they've done for the past 6 years.