Housing homeless cheaper, more effective than status quo: study

[Lucy Goosey]

A new study says there’s a consensus forming on how to fix one of the most stubborn social problems: homelessness. The study by Stephen Gaetz, director of the Canadian Homelessness Research Network, pulls together research from across Canada and the United States, which suggests it’s far cheaper to give a homeless person a place to live than to provide a patchwork of emergency services.

Mr. Gaetz says governments spend at least $4.5-billion a year dealing with homeless people, including the costs of emergency health care, mental-health services, law enforcement, shelters and food banks.
That’s because their use of the health system is high and unpredictable, because they often have run-ins with the law and because upon release from jail, they often end up homeless again.

Recent research done through the Mental Health Commission of Canada shows that providing support and housing to chronically homeless people can save taxpayers 54 cents on the dollar compared with the current approach.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/housing-homeless-cheaper-more-effective-than-status-quo-study/article4563718/

If only elected officials would take this sort of thing and run with it.

[xchrom]

1. du rec. Nt

[mike_c]

2. +1

[JDPriestly]

3. Homeless people need a dependable place to live. It's a no-brainer if you think about it.

If they need other services, then help them find them. But provide them with decent housing first and foremost. From there, many of them can find their ways with little help.

[Warpy]

6. Just a room with a lock on the door

is all it takes to get them out of the mindset, the pure funk at having nowhere to go. You'll see many of them get a lot healthier with just that one thing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. K&R This is among the Big Secrets we allow ourselves to ignore.

Relieving poverty in general would be so much less expensive than the systems and institutions we have created to deal with the fallout from it, but it would also mean that a lot of people that make a lot of money from those archaic, wasteful, and ineffective systems would lose their incomes.

And by no coincidence whatsoever, many of them are the same people that run the world.

[Lucy Goosey]

9. "Big secrets we allow ourselves to ignore"

That's a great turn of phrase.

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Thank you & kick. n/t

[theinquisitivechad]

5. K& MF'ing R!!! n/t

[Mnemosyne]

7. K&R if it makes sense, the ptb will never allow it. jmho nt

[obxhead]

8. Also, if you give the homeless a safe place to live,

to shower, and food to eat, they are FAR more likely to become a productive member of society.

Just giving them random help every now and then never allows them to truly get out of their horrible situation.

[justice1]

10. It's a shame we don't help people more, before they become homeless.

[cr8tvlde]

11. So true...so true. There are many abandoned hotels and motels and government buildings

and in our town, it was also a hospital that had closed that provided appropriate housing...temporary or longer term. The kids would know their school and be more secure, and they were the local "hangout" for daily laborers...better than nothing. Much easier for social services and support to provide reliable service and counseling and the community sends food there on a regular basis.

[RobertEarl]

12. Not only cheaper

It is the right thing to do. So why don't we do it?

It has never been harder to have and keep a home. A few percent tax on every property that is held for investment, ya know, like for capital gains, would provide most of the money needed to take care of those who have hit bottom.

Of course such a tax may lead to a few less car elevators at mansions?