United Way Study Suggests Housing the Homeless Could Save Tax Dollars

[zengonzo]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeless14-2009oct14,0,6561655.story

A United Way study followed four homeless people for four years. Finding permanent housing could save taxpayers $20,000 a year on each formerly homeless person, the study found.

Finding permanent housing for Los Angeles County's homeless rather than allowing them to continue living on the streets could save taxpayer money, according to a study released Tuesday by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

The four-year study followed four homeless people while they lived on the streets and later as they found stable housing. Researchers concluded that taxpayers could save $20,000 a year per person using public services. There were an estimated 73,000 homeless in the county last year.

Elise Buik, president and chief executive of the local United Way, said the study also looked at other cities that have reduced homelessness and found that permanent housing was the key.

"We always need to be very prudent with our public dollars, and for legislators to see this is a cost-effective model helps build the case that this is an effective model," Buik said.

The study followed four chronically homeless people: a 52-year-old white woman, a 58-year-old white man, a 32-year-old Latino man and a 61-year-old black man. It took into account drug abuse, physical health, mental health, criminal justice and housing.

Once placed in stable housing, each became less dependent on public services. Emergency room visits went from 19 among all of them to one, and rehab stints went from six to none, according to the study. Incarcerations were eliminated, the study found.

"Once you find them housing, they do lead stable lives," Buik said. "One of the things we're trying to do is take away the stigma and show that people can go on to lead productive lives."


I'm not entirely sure if they're suggesting the savings assumes state-funded housing or simply funding assistance towards finding housing. This issue particularly stands out to me with the recent discussion of what to do with the hopelessly unemployable.

I know it will immediately annoy some people to suggest that the state house such people. The concerns of general socialism aside (if possible), if it were cheaper to provide housing to such people than to clean up after them, would that be an acceptable program?

Or are the ideological issues attached to the issue more costly than even the savings of a pragmatic solution?

[MikeSofaer]

The concerns of general socialism aside (if possible), if it were cheaper to provide housing to such people than to clean up after them, would that be an acceptable program?
I think there have been a lot of trashed public apartments when this has been tried. But I could have been misinformed.

[Cubit]

Back when the mortgage crisis really hit hard, it struck me how sad it was that so many people went homeless when thousands of houses nearby stood empty either from foreclosure or they were built and never moved into.

[zengonzo]

Back when the mortgage crisis really hit hard, it struck me how sad it was that so many people went homeless when thousands of houses nearby stood empty either from foreclosure or they were built and never moved into.


No kidding. I remember one of The Boston Globe's Big Picture bits featuring images of people living out of their cars mixed in with shots of entire communities of houses falling into disrepair with overgrown yards.

It absolutely killed me.

[zengonzo]

I think there have been a lot of trashed public apartments when this has been tried. But I could have been misinformed.


Yeah, that's a pretty definite problem. Some people are just absolute messes and can't be relied upon to take care of themselves in any circumstances.

The article also wasn't clear whether the costs of housing had been included in the figure or not. So no telling if that saved money wouldn't be eaten up right away by those costs.

[Kraaze]

I think some basic public housing and free food is probably more economical and definitely more moral than turning our back on the homeless and hoping pure outraged disapproval will reform them.

[AndrewM]

I've read about actual attempts to implement this. The main thing is that you get homeless people, like alcoholics, that end up in emergency rooms all the time from hypothermia, and it is much cheaper to keep them housed and have some counselors look after them. There was some example of a guy who had used hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in emergency room care before they took him off the street. Way cheaper just to get the guy an apartment and alcohol counseling.

[jpinard]

Wasn't what's being suggested above already done in the 60's via Public Housing? I remember reading how public housing had become the bane of some cities and they were doing everything possible to tear all those buildings down.

[Blackadar]

I think a far more comprehensive study needs to be done.

Once placed in stable housing, each became less dependent on public services. Emergency room visits went from 19 among all of them to one, and rehab stints went from six to none, according to the study. Incarcerations were eliminated, the study found.

Are we to expect these results as typical? That most homeless people, once housed, won't use the emergency room? Or will lead clean & sober lives? That they kept their house/apartment in good enough condition to not adversely impact the value of the surrounding houses/apartments?

There are a LOT of questions I have about this. It may have some merit, but whether it does and how much remain to be seen.

[zengonzo]

Quite right. This study really only serves as a basic exploration.

Though I was still interested in the answer to the question of whether or not cost-beneficiality would override ideology for those generally opposed to such significant social welfare undertakings? Or are such measures better to avoid under any circumstances?

[CLWheeljack]

Wasn't what's being suggested above already done in the 60's via Public Housing? I remember reading how public housing had become the bane of some cities and they were doing everything possible to tear all those buildings down.

Possibly. I know there are a large number of different ways to implement public housing, and that its worked better in some other countries than it did in the US.

I was led to believe that part of the problem was the US system kept the housing purely public, without giving the people who lived there an ownership stake (presumably a small stake that builds up over time). Without an ownership stake, people saw no reason not to trash the place, but once they have a stake, they take better care of it because it is partially (or will be eventually) their own property.

That's a huge over-simplification I'm sure, but I know there are a number of different ways to implement public housing, so a single failure shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as a failure of the idea in general.

[Kael]

I don't think giving free housing to those that are unable to buy their own is a good idea. I think you will find that the number of "homeless" people in the US would skyrocket as they all filed for free housing.

Having the solution work for specific individual's doesn't mean it is a good program for the country.

[Mordrak]

I don't think giving free housing to those that are unable to buy their own is a good idea. I think you will find that the number of "homeless" people in the US would skyrocket as they all filed for free housing.

Having the solution work for specific individual's doesn't mean it is a good program for the country.

It depends on what that housing entails. If it's bunk style housing (or at best dorm), that'd be a disincentive to game the system for many people. Certainly, I don't see middle class families trying to game the shelter system (or even working class/low income), at least not at any meaningful scale.

Edit: And why couldn't they screen for income? You think that many people would give up their jobs to be homeless for a free bed? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

[Mordrak]

Possibly. I know there are a large number of different ways to implement public housing, and that its worked better in some other countries than it did in the US.

I was led to believe that part of the problem was the US system kept the housing purely public, without giving the people who lived there an ownership stake (presumably a small stake that builds up over time). Without an ownership stake, people saw no reason not to trash the place, but once they have a stake, they take better care of it because it is partially (or will be eventually) their own property.

That's a huge over-simplification I'm sure, but I know there are a number of different ways to implement public housing, so a single failure shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as a failure of the idea in general.

That's a great idea. We can get everyone a loan for their home and they'll think of themselves as owners rather than workers. We could call them sub prime loans and we could call the goal the "Ownership Society." Brilliant!

[Kael]

It depends on what that housing entails. If it's bunk style housing (or at best dorm), that'd be a disincentive to game the system for many people. Certainly, I don't see middle class families trying to game the shelter system (or even working class/low income), at least not at any meaningful scale.

Edit: And why couldn't they screen for income? You think that many people would give up their jobs to be homeless for a free bed? That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Im not worried about middle income families. I'm worried about comparing the 73,000 homeless in the US compared to the millions living in poverty. All those who aren't working (or getting paid under the table) that would be happy to find out that they had a free rent option available to them.

Thats why I think that the minute we decide to give homeless people homes we will find that our number of homeless people has just exploded.

[Mordrak]

Well there's already subsidized housing in many areas (not free though) for low end families and workers, but the wait lists are very long (4-5 years near me). I'm not sure they'd trade homelessness for even cheaper rent (and likely another long wait list).

You have a point about people getting paid under the table, but given that we already have some assistance in place I'm not sure that people would willfully lower their status to take advantage of it, or that whatever screening process (and fraud investigation) we already have in place for programs similar to this idea, couldn't be effective with this as well.

In a practical implementation, I think you're really overestimating this concern.

[Kraaze]

Im not worried about middle income families. I'm worried about comparing the 73,000 homeless in the US compared to the millions living in poverty. All those who aren't working (or getting paid under the table) that would be happy to find out that they had a free rent option available to them.

Thats why I think that the minute we decide to give homeless people homes we will find that our number of homeless people has just exploded.

and the problem would be . . . ?

[Johan O]

and the problem would be . . . ?
Chunks of flesh from 73000 exploded homeless people.

[Kael]

and the problem would be . . . ?

That any program created with the assumption that it will save taxpayer money by offering free housing to those who are/claim homelessness is inherently flawed.

[Tim James]

Permanent housing for L.A.'s homeless saves tax dollars, study suggests

A United Way study followed four homeless people for four years. Finding permanent housing could save taxpayers $20,000 a year on each formerly homeless person, the study found.

Finding permanent housing for Los Angeles County's homeless rather than allowing them to continue living on the streets could save taxpayer money, according to a study released Tuesday by the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

The four-year study followed four homeless people while they lived on the streets and later as they found stable housing. Researchers concluded that taxpayers could save $20,000 a year per person using public services.Hey, did everyone know there was a study that could save taxpayers money by housing the homeless? Because if not: there was a study that could save taxpayers money by housing the homeless.

Is old media dead yet?

[Mordrak]

That any program created with the assumption that it will save taxpayer money by offering free housing to those who are/claim homelessness is inherently flawed.

Because...? Or are you just declaring it flawed by definition?

How do you define taxpayer money? Does that 100,000 in emergency visits come out of tax funds or is it added on to premiums or some combination of both?

You've suggested fraud is a concern when implementing a program like this. No shit. That's a concern when the government (or a private entity for that matter) implements any program (or business). That's all.

[Kraaze]

That any program created with the assumption that it will save taxpayer money by offering free housing to those who are/claim homelessness is inherently flawed.

Not seeing that at all. The tired old argument that any help to those most in need would inevitably turn into a massive handout as hordes of people suddenly gave up productive work is silly and doesn't hold any water.

[Mordrak]

I don't think he's quite saying that (though it's implied), just the disadvantaged but not homeless will try to take advantage of it. I think it's a reasonable concern to some extent, but it really depends on how such a program is structured, the screening process, the housing, and the amount that is available.

At the same time, I don't think his short declarative statement is that meaningful, nor should it prevent exploring the options to see how this might work in a more rigorous fashion than shooting the shit over a message board.

[Kael]

Because...? Or are you just declaring it flawed by definition?

How do you define taxpayer money? Does that 100,000 in emergency visits come out of tax funds or is it added on to premiums or some combination of both?

You've suggested fraud is a concern when implementing a program like this. No shit. That's a concern when the government (or a private entity for that matter) implements any program (or business). That's all.

Its not fraud. There are a lot of people that are truly jobless and dont own homes. The fact that they are sleeping on someones couch now instead of sleeping under a bridge is irrelevant.

To better vocalize my point let me offer this: I consider 73,000 to be an incredably low number for the amount of people in the US that are effectivly homeless. I know at least 6 adults that aren't working and in a home only because someone else allows them to stay there. Some are women staying with guys because they have no other option, some are adult children with their parents who they dont want to be with, some are drug users who are completely unproductive beyond getting their next hit.

I doubt any of those people qualify for the homeless numbers that have been counted. Yet all are equally financially applicable for this program as a guy living under a bridge. How would you distinguish between the two? Is it rational to distinguish between the two since they are in similar situations?

My guess is that if the government offered free housing to those who are "homeless" (meaning no income, no current residence) they would get at least a million qualified candidates. This isn't fraud, they are justifiably in need. Financing all those cases is the real cost of the program and why I think it won't save taxpayers any money.

Not seeing that at all. The tired old argument that any help to those most in need would inevitably turn into a massive handout as hordes of people suddenly gave up productive work is silly and doesn't hold any water.

In my opinion neither extreme is acceptable. I believe in universal health care. I think anyone should be able to go to the doctor and get the medical treatment they need. Yes that system is vulnerable to abuse, yes it rewards those who do the least. But I do think that we as a society have some reasonable responsibilites towards our fellow citizens.

But free housing to those without seems financially untenable. As I mentioned above I think the difference comes down to how many people you believe are truly homeless. If you believe that it is 73,000 it may be workable. I think the number is much higher, or will be higher when you start incenting it.

[Mordrak]

I doubt any of those people qualify for the homeless numbers that have been counted. Yet all are equally financially applicable for this program as a guy living under a bridge. How would you distinguish between the two? Is it rational to distinguish between the two since they are in similar situations?


One way to distinguish between them is if they are declared as a dependent, which can be and is used as a tax incentive to provide food and board by related family members. The deduction is pretty small though. Of course that can't eliminate all of those examples, but I also think the state of the housing (what it realistically offers, compared to their current "crashing" situation) matters as well.

That's a pretty fair point still though, but I think any program like this would be pretty limited and work through existing homeless outreach programs which would probably help minimize that kind of use of the program.

[Hugin]

Yeah, that's a pretty definite problem. Some people are just absolute messes and can't be relied upon to take care of themselves in any circumstances.

The article also wasn't clear whether the costs of housing had been included in the figure or not. So no telling if that saved money wouldn't be eaten up right away by those costs.

"It took into account drug abuse, physical health, mental health, criminal justice and housing."

And even if it didn't, if you put say, 4 people into a 400k house, and you could keep the houses in the system while (hopefully) slowly rotating homeless people in and out of them in say ten year chunks, it would more than pay for itself.

[Hanzii]

But free housing to those without seems financially untenable. As I mentioned above I think the difference comes down to how many people you believe are truly homeless. If you believe that it is 73,000 it may be workable. I think the number is much higher, or will be higher when you start incenting it.

And yet it works (just like universal healthcare) in other parts of the world.

[Kael]

And yet it works (just like universal healthcare) in other parts of the world.

And I suspect in those places it is also not saving the taxpayers money, but instead carries a significant cost.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I was led to believe that part of the problem was the US system kept the housing purely public, without giving the people who lived there an ownership stake (presumably a small stake that builds up over time). Without an ownership stake, people saw no reason not to trash the place, but once they have a stake, they take better care of it because it is partially (or will be eventually) their own property.

I rent. I will never own. I don't trash the place. Explain.

*I would have used Afghanistan instead of Iraq in the post title, but it wouldn't fit.

[Hanzii]

And I suspect in those places it is also not saving the taxpayers money, but instead carries a significant cost.

Or perhaps it saves them money as the alternative would be more costly as the paper suggests - even more so in societies with national healthcare and an idea that we shouldn't expect private charities to handle those lowest in society.

[kerzain]

I don't think giving free housing to those that are unable to buy their own is a good idea. I think you will find that the number of "homeless" people in the US would skyrocket as they all filed for free housing.

Having the solution work for specific individual's doesn't mean it is a good program for the country.Yup, the entire idea of public housing being a plausible solution is flawed for this very reason, all it will do is perpetuate homelessness.

[Kael]

Yup, the entire idea of public housing being a plausible solution is flawed for this very reason, all it will do is perpetuate homelessness.

Well, Im not commenting on "the entire idea of public housing", only the idea that such a policy would save us money.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Yup, the entire idea of public housing being a plausible solution is flawed for this very reason, all it will do is perpetuate homelessness.

Housing programs cause homelessness? Do highway programs cause roadlessness?

[foogla]

4 isn't that big of a focus group, we need more studies

[wildpokerman]

Quite right. This study really only serves as a basic exploration.

Though I was still interested in the answer to the question of whether or not cost-beneficiality would override ideology for those generally opposed to such significant social welfare undertakings? Or are such measures better to avoid under any circumstances?

Quite right, it's more important to count the cost to society than to HOUSE THE FUCKING HOMELESS. You insensitive asshole.

[Nellie]

That sounds like SOCIALISM to me.

[zengonzo]

Quite right, it's more important to count the cost to society than to HOUSE THE FUCKING HOMELESS. You insensitive asshole.


Heh. I'm all for it. I'd just like to know what might change other people's minds.

[Kraaze]

But free housing to those without seems financially untenable. As I mentioned above I think the difference comes down to how many people you believe are truly homeless. If you believe that it is 73,000 it may be workable. I think the number is much higher, or will be higher when you start incenting it.

I think the number can be controlled quite easily with any sort of sane controls on the program. We are talking about pretty basic and undesirable public housing here, so I seriously doubt we are incenting homelessness to any degree.

[Kraaze]

And I suspect in those places it is also not saving the taxpayers money, but instead carries a significant cost.

Possibly, but I'm okay with that too. Helping those in need shouldn't hinge on a profit/loss calculation.

[Jason McCullough]

The statistics are the in 1 to 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Statistics_and_d emographics) million neighborhood on homelessness.

[arctangent]

Perhaps those 1 to 3 million homeless could be arrested for vagrancy, tried, convicted, and jailed. That would solve the problem right there, and the 2.3 million people already in prisons in the US could make new friends.

It would probably be cheaper to build public housing or use existing housing for them, though.

[Mordrak]

Possibly, but I'm okay with that too. Helping those in need shouldn't hinge on a profit/loss calculation.

But to be fair to Kael, that's a different argument than the what the study is proposing.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Incentivizing homelessness:

1. People who participate in the program will no longer be homeless.

2. If the program is overwhelmed by false participants and therefore unable to provide homes to everyone involved, the people with the means to acquire shelter on their own will leave the program and do so.

3. How many people who can afford regular meals eat at soup kitchens to save money?

Homelessness is not going to go up as the result of a housing program.

[Cubit]

3. How many people who can afford regular meals eat at soup kitchens to save money?

Heh, well said.

[wildpokerman]

Heh. I'm all for it. I'd just like to know what might change other people's minds.

Eh that's cool then, sorry. When I hear people say they would like to see a study on some social ill I start thinking Tuskegee experiment.