Utah projected to end homelessness in their state by 2015 by giving people homes

[The Question]

http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183

Utah is ending homelessness by giving people homes

Earlier this month, Hawaii State representative Tom Bower (D) began walking the streets of his Waikiki district with a sledgehammer, and smashing shopping carts used by homeless people. “Disgusted” by the city’s chronic homelessness problem, Bower decided to take matters into his own hands — literally. He also took to rousing homeless people if he saw them sleeping at bus stops during the day.

Bower’s tactics were over the top, and so unpopular that he quickly declared “Mission accomplished,” and retired his sledgehammer. But Bower’s frustration with his city’s homelessness problem is just an extreme example of the frustration that has led cities to pass measures that effective deal with the homeless by criminalizing homelessness.

City council members in Columbia, South Carolina, concerned that the city was becoming a “magnet for homeless people,” passed an ordinance giving the homeless the option to either relocate or get arrested. The council later rescinded the ordinance, after backlash from police officers, city workers, and advocates.

Last year, Tampa, Florida — which had the most homeless people for a mid-sized city — passed an ordinance allowing police officers to arrest anyone they saw sleeping in public, or “storing personal property in public.” The city followed up with a ban on panhandling downtown, and other locations around the city.

Philadelphia took a somewhat different approach, with a law banning the feeding of homeless people on city parkland. Religious groups objected to the ban, and announced that they would not obey it.

Raleigh, North Carolina took the step of asking religious groups to stop their longstanding practice of feeding the homeless in a downtown park on weekends. Religious leaders announced that they would risk arrest rather than stop.

This trend makes Utah’s accomplishment even more noteworthy. In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by 2015.

How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail says for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but the keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s.

It sounds like Utah borrowed a page from Homes Not Handcuffs, the 2009 report by The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless. Using a 2004 survey and anecdotal evidence from activists, the report concluded that permanent housing for the homeless is cheaper than criminalization. Housing is not only more human, it’s economical.

This happened in a Republican state! Republicans in Congress would probably have required the homeless to take a drug test before getting an apartment, denied apartments to homeless people with criminal records, and evicted those who failed to become self-sufficient after five years or so. But Utah’s results show that even conservative states can solve problems like homelessness with decidedly progressive solutions.

 

[NickNitro]

Faith in Humanity: Restored to lvl Utah

 

[Warhammer]

What are the cons?

Sorry, I had to be that guy.

 

[The Question]

What are the cons?

Sorry, I had to be that guy.

As far as I can tell, none. Could be wrong about that, of course, but I can't see any from any of the information that's currently available to me. It uses up less tax payer money than not doing it, it's much more likely to help people break out of the cycle of poverty than not doing it, and on average there are at any given time about 20 vacant houses and apartments for every homeless person in the US, so there's still plenty of living space to go around.

Beyond ephemeral notions or "a day's pay for a day's work" and other objectvist philosophical stuff that I honestly could not care less about, I can't see a downside to this.

 

[Marvolo]

At least one state gets it!

Oh and to the Raleigh churches who would risk arrest to help those in need!

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

That's good. But meanwhile they are actively trying to destroy the recent marriages of same-sex couples, so Utah doesn't deserve too much kudos yet.

 

[The Question]

That's good. But meanwhile they are actively trying to destroy the recent marriages of same-sex couples, so I can't be too big on Utah right now.

Well, for me anyway, this has less to do with "Utah is great" and more to do with "Utah had a good idea, let's try it out in other places."

 

[chamber-music]

 

[NickNitro]

Oh well faith in Humanity Restored: To lvl some ideas of Utah

 

[KevanG]

I would question it but it really does make a lot of sense.

 

[Feenix]

There is one major glaring factor in all of this that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Yes, these people are no longer "homeless" as they have a home, but what made them homeless in the first place is not addressed.

This:

Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but the keep the apartment even if they fail

is a major concern. What if these homeless people are addicts, mentally ill, criminals, etc? Giving the homeless a home is a bandaid. I give Utah props for providing caseworkers to these people, but the fact that they keep the home even if they fail is disconcerting. Where's the motivation to do better or get healthy? I'd like to see the inside of these homes as well. I wonder what kind of condition they're in.

A drug addicted homeless person is no longer homeless because the state gave them a home. But, they're still a drug addict. This program needs to be expanded to try and solve the root of the problem. They need to address the issues that caused these people to become homeless in the first place.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

"Now that's more like it, Mr. Wayne."

 

[Superwoman Prime]

There is one major glaring factor in all of this that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Yes, these people are no longer "homeless" as they have a home, but what made them homeless in the first place is not addressed.

This:



is a major concern. What if these homeless people are addicts, mentally ill, criminals, etc? Giving the homeless a home is a bandaid. I give Utah props for providing caseworkers to these people, but the fact that they keep the home even if they fail is disconcerting. Where's the motivation to do better or get healthy? I'd like to see the inside of these homes as well. I wonder what kind of condition they're in.

A drug addicted homeless person is no longer homeless because the state gave them a home. But, they're still a drug addict. This program needs to be expanded to try and solve the root of the problem. They need to address the issues that caused these people to become homeless in the first place.

Obligatory rehab.

 

[Warhammer]

is a major concern. What if these homeless people are addicts, mentally ill, criminals, etc? Giving the homeless a home is a bandaid. I give Utah props for providing caseworkers to these people, but the fact that they keep the home even if they fail is disconcerting. Where's the motivation to do better or get healthy? I'd like to see the inside of these homes as well. I wonder what kind of condition they're in.

Well, here we have different methodologies. What you are describing is a reward system. I can definitely see where you are coming from. However, what I believe Utah is trying is to put someone who has fallen in a positive environment. In theory, them being removed from their poverty and put into a better environment will eventually put them on the right path. It'll be it's own motivation. This is essentially planting the positive idea in their head.

 

[The Question]

There is one major glaring factor in all of this that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Yes, these people are no longer "homeless" as they have a home, but what made them homeless in the first place is not addressed.

This:



is a major concern. What if these homeless people are addicts, mentally ill, criminals, etc? Giving the homeless a home is a bandaid. I give Utah props for providing caseworkers to these people, but the fact that they keep the home even if they fail is disconcerting. Where's the motivation to do better or get healthy? I'd like to see the inside of these homes as well. I wonder what kind of condition they're in.

A drug addicted homeless person is no longer homeless because the state gave them a home. But, they're still a drug addict. This program needs to be expanded to try and solve the root of the problem. They need to address the issues that caused these people to become homeless in the first place.

I don't think "fix your life or you will likely starve or die of exposure" is a reasonable or ethical incentive for the State to hold over someone's head. Taking away their housing for failing to turn their lives around doesn't actually solve anything. Statistically speaking, people are much less likely to overcome self destructive behavior in an unstable environment. Not having a certainty of a place to live makes one more likely to steal or take drugs, not less so.

And the fact is, providing everyone with a caseworker as well as a place to live is doing much more to solve the immediate concerns and root problems of being homeless than any other state in the Union is doing.

Like, I do agree that this should be expanded to work in partnership with a drug rehab program of some kind, if it isn't already. But that's a matter of expansion, there's no reason this program shouldn't continue to exist as it does while the program is expanded upon. Kicking people out of this program for failing to fix their lives is a wretched idea. It solves nothing and causes more harm.

And really, I don't think those people who are addicted to drugs will be at a loss of motivation to get better and get healthy. The constant positive influence of a caseworker, the resources available to them now that their lives are suddenly not in a state of free fall, and the very basic desire to have some control over one's life will do a lot more good than letting them hit rock bottom. The notion of the rock bottom wake up call and epiphany is nice and poetic, but it's hardly reliable and doesn't account for the practical concerns of pulling yourself up from that state, namely that doing so can sometimes be impossible regardless of one's intentions.

 

[charl_huntress]

Other states should bus their homeless to Utah Castro style.

 

[chaseter]

Homes technically do make someone that is homeless, not homeless. Now they can work on being jobless...which is what makes someone homeless.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not just drugs, it's also psychological stuff. The fact that 1 in 4 homeless are veterans isn't a coincidence.

 

[The Question]

It's not just drugs, it's also psychological stuff. The fact that 1 in 4 homeless are veterans isn't a coincidence.

Also, most homeless people aren't homeless because of drugs, it's usually just a result of bad circumstances landing someone in a situation they can't get out of. A lot of them end up doing drugs, in fact, because they're homeless. Ot gives them an escape while also giving them a set schedule to help keep them sane.

 

[Enriquespy]

Homes technically do make someone that is homeless, not homeless. Now they can work on being jobless...which is what makes someone homeless.

Maybe we can apply the same logic and give them jobs!!!

 

[jmc]

Environmental factors can psychologically alter someones behaviour. If you're in a safe and positive environment you're more likely to start taking positive actions. So you give a homeless person a place to live, all of a sudden they have a roof over their head, their mood changes for the better, maybe they are given some new clothes, their mood improves again and they start thinking better of themselves, then you help work them up to obtaining a job of some kind, their mood improves again, before you know it they are a shadow of their former self.

 

[Duke]

What are the cons?

Sorry, I had to be that guy.

Having to become a Mormon, maybe?

 

[Quasimod0]

So basically I could quit my job and move to Utah and get a house for free. And then get a similar-paying job there and get more money because of all of the money I'm saving on housing? Or is there a point where you make too much money and can no longer live there for free?

 

[Teelie]

I'm sure they're not going to just let you live freely in the housing without any kind of effort to move out. Once you reach a certain level of income I imagine they'll "evict" you and/or force you to find new housing accomodations.

This is a good idea in theory, in practice it could end up backfiring although I'm guessing that they have planned for how to handle any potential squatters.

 

[Quasimod0]

Right, like what if people just live in the homes and continue to not make money, because if they do then they will be evicted or forced to pay. There are a lot of things to work out with the plan. At least they are trying new things though.