Hacker News Reader

Comment by ch4s3 | Hacker News Reader

Ideology aside, it seems to be working better than any other state's solution and for less money. It seems pragmatic enough. I would be curious to see some numbers on success of people the enrolled in the program in 2005-6.

I wish I could remember where I first read it, but from what I understand the average long term homeless person is a middle aged disabled man with either a mental illness or some form of substance dependency. Many are also veterans. It seems silly to tell that person to bootstrap. So for 11k a year for a roof and social worker vs. 16.65k for E.R. visits, jail, etc it seems like a no brainer. that's 5.65k in savings each per year.

View on HN

"but from what I understand the average long term homeless person is a middle aged disabled man with either a mental illness or some form of substance dependency."

That's stereotypical homeless.. what we imagine when we think of homeless people.

The average homeless person is 9 years old. Children represent 1/3rd of the homeless population (1.35m out of 3.5m).

These were the first results from Google:

http://www.opendoormission.org/about/fast-facts

http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/pages/basic-facts

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant the average long term homeless adult. Sorry for the pdf http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/caton/repor...

This report states that the average age of people enrolled in services for the long term homeless is 40.

There are also the quality of life improvements for the general populace of not having homeless on the street at all times and possibly also a measure of increased safety.

I'm respectfully dubious about the safety claim. Maybe perceived safety, but the last time I checked in my city (Baltimore) violent crimes weren't being perpetrated by the homeless, but rather the homeless are often victims. So, its safer for those people taken off the street.

More importantly, it unburdens city ERs and police departments. So, ok, maybe there is an indirect safety effect from freed up police resources.

Interesting how hairy and interconnected all of these complicated issues become when you dive into them.

The "less money" part is not so obvious. The article does not go in details about that part, so it's very hard to say whether it's BS or not. A house needs frequent maintenance, renovation, cleaning, etc... and this costs a lot of money in the mid-long run, as facilities degrade.

As for the ideology itself, I wonder how people who are working just to get enough money to survive and rent a place feel about this. I would be fine with the idea that a homeless person gets a home for a while, as long as they actively sort their life out and find a way to get to work again in a reasonable timeframe. Unless they are mentally ill, of course.

You could probably negate resentment from the working poor/other people working hard just to survive by making the facilities kind of basic, but available to everyone. People who want something prettier, in a better location, or with more amenities can pay for that experience. People in desperate situations will likely take whatever they can get.

I'm under the impression that the program is aimed at the chronically homeless, who tend to be disabled and or mentally ill. Also, after reading more about the program here http://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/hprrh/ it seems that when possible the program is focused on reentry into the workforce. The state claims that its successful and saves money, and its not like the place is run by Bernie Sanders.

It's true that it costs some money to maintain this kind of thing, but it costs a lot of money to maintain the current solutions, so the bar to beat is not exactly low. The current solutions for housing long-term homeless include, in varying proportions, such expensive facilities as: jail cells, hospital rooms, 72-hour holds in psychiatric facilities, and homeless shelters. My own guess is that Americans don't actually care about the cost, but are extremely paranoid that someone is getting something they feel they don't deserve. If someone is locked up in a prison cell for 5x the cost of renting them an apartment, then that's fine, because at least you know they were "punished" for spending the taxpayers' money, not getting something subjectively nice.

It's not clear how much those $16k costs for ER visits and jail stays are reduced, if at all. We can't conclude from the information provided if there are any savings at all

If there is adequate social work to follow up, I'm betting those ER visits and jail stays are reduced quite a bit. See also: Denmark

Reply on news.ycombinator.com