If you were a community, municipality or country committing to the principle that all people deserve shelter, how would you make that principle a reality?
If you were a community, municipality or country committing to the principle that all people deserve shelter, how would you make that principle a reality?
You're viewing a single thread.
There are two kinds of homeless people: those who desire shelter, and those who don't. Usually the latter group is in the grip of psychosis, drugs, or both. There needs to be some form of involuntary commitment to deal with them.
For the former group: keep building shelters until there's no more waiting list. There should always be an excess of beds available.
Once that's the case, the only people left on the street are that group I mentioned earlier. But that's a pretty complicated issue to deal with.
Can you share sources about the idea that some people don't desire shelter? My understanding is more that drugs or mental illness make it difficult to retain housing. Their behavior towards others and their inability to pay means they end up homeless, but seems like people universally want a roof over their heads. My understanding is that among professionals working in this area, the view is that having a place to live is the first step in addressing issues like drug abuse and mental health. I'm aware of one organization in Philadelphia, Project Home, that others view as a model.
Housing is exponentially more expensive than shelter. Sure, in an ideal world, housing should come first, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world of budget constraints. We need to practice harm reduction.
Some others here have highlighted that "shelter services" is not the same thing as an actual shelter. People can't stay as long as they want, they don't have a secure place to store their belongings, and they can be dangerous. Here is a post with sources that outlines why permanent supportive housing is more cost effective than temporary overnight shelters
Sure, overall. But the cost of someone living partially or fully on the streets is spread between public and private. The cost to the State is typically less.
I can't follow the links to any of the sources in that post, btw.
Yeah, not sure what's up with that. Here are the working links as best I can tell:
- "A recent HUD study found that the cost of providing emergency shelter to families is generally as much or more than the cost of placing them in transitional or permanent housing"
- "All the residents at this Housing First styled residence..."
- "A cost study of rural homelessness from Portland ME found significant cost reductions when providing permanent supportive housing as opposed to serving the people while they remain homeless"
- "A study from Los Angeles CA... found that placing four chronically homeless people into permanent supportive housing saved the city more than $80,000 per year"
Lastly this link did seem to work but I thought the statistics and the FAQ were helpful.--
Sorry, finally got around to reading your links. I can't find the LA study, but the Portland comparison is a bit of an outlier compared to the homeless problem in most cities. The cost of acquiring housing in large cities is much larger.
Most of the studies seem to compare the cost before and after placing people in permanent housing, but not factoring in the cost of the housing itself. And they speak about the benefits to individuals placed in housing, not the society wide impacts. If we could vastly improve the life of one person a year at the expense of all other homeless people, that's a terrible bargain.
Shelters are not a cure-all, they're harm reduction. And I still suspect they're massively cheaper (in cost per number of people helped) than procuring housing for everyone.