@Krellin,
No... it's different from the old model in that it's not an inpatient institution. In the old model, you check in and they don't let you leave til you check out. In this model, they help connect you to the community, they know your habits, and they can talk to you, but you come and go as you please.

This idea works OK if your city or state is remote enough that it won't draw homeless from other cities or states. Let's face it, your not walking across a bridge from Indiana to Illinois or Kentucky to Ohio. Utah is a remote state by population. It has a fraction of Ohio, Illinois, California, New York, Pennsylvania, or Florida and it's neighboring states are also pretty low in the population charts. But the states I have mentioned all have neighboring states with poor populations whose homeless would come wandering across the borders for the free handouts.

Being realistic, it saves 5k per homeless person (about 35% of the cost), but if it causes the homeless ranks to swell, it won't take long before that savings is eaten up by having more people you have to shelter.

It's called a half-way house.

"But you can't include numbers like the amount of police calls to say the housing is better than institutionalization. There are fewer calls because they're not on the streets, not because they're in homes as such."

Well, it's certainly cheaper in the long run than institutionalization for a few reasons, not least of which that it's staffed by two social workers instead of a whole ward full of nurses and at least three physicians.

Invictus - perhaps you need to check back in with your keepers and have your meds checked.

Right krellin, just call me Cheswick.

"Well, it's certainly cheaper in the long run than institutionalization for a few reasons, not least of which that it's staffed by two social workers instead of a whole ward full of nurses and at least three physicians."

But there's the economy of scale you might get with a well-run institution. And if it works better it might be the one to go with even if it's more expensive.

Again, you may well be right. I just think it's an open question.

'Now the evil right-winger in me is rearing his head. It should be one or the other. We don't need to be spending public money for TWO extensive anti-homelessness programs because of the particular needs of individuals. Find the one that works best on the whole and go with that.'

No, spend less on both programs and get more efficient use from them, rather than providing a monolithic system with no flexibility which provides everyone with the 'cheapest' but often ineffective.

It's like how you don't want a single monopoly in the market place because you get inefficiencies.

"Now the evil right-winger in me is rearing his head. It should be one or the other. We don't need to be spending public money for TWO extensive anti-homelessness programs because of the particular needs of individuals. Find the one that works best on the whole and go with that. "

There is no one sixe fits all solution here, Invictus. The mentally ill need treatment, sometimes to the point of full institutionalization, but the more functioning members of society who happen to be homeless, need a helping hand, not to be locked up. So we need multiple systems to maximum the effect. Trying for a one size fits all solution means only those for whom the chosen system works will be helped. Should we choose the *wrong* system, we may be helping fewer than with another system or, worse yet, we may be harming some people. If we go with institutionalization of every homeless person, then we are locking up perfectly functional members of society who just need a helping hand. If we go with the halfway house or private apartment for free under conditions, then the folks who need treatment for mental illness may never get it.

Ever walk in to a stepped-care old folks home? grandma and grandpa can't quite take care of the house anymore (or don't want to) so they move in to the old-people place. at first, they come and go as they please, have their own kitchen, etc. Independent. As they get older and more infirm, nursing care becomes available, they can use the cafeteria if they want, there's a bus to take them to the mall....all these options in a SINGLE efficient facility.

Just because people have different needs doesn't mean they need entirely different housing and government departments to care for them.

Good lord...

Am I the only one that finds those old folks homes, regardless of level of community or independence, sad? Perhaps another one of my conservative streaks showing through, but I think it's better for the parents to live with the children. My parents are aging, and I hope they will at least consider this.

And what do you do about people who have no kids? Thucy, you made a *huge* assumption. Plus, in my mother-in-law's case, she won't live with us because her mom with lived here and my father-in-law and she hated it. She loves her cottage and Mason Christian Village (http://masonchristianvillage.org/). She has complete independence but knows that they keep an eye out for her if she takes a fall or hasn't been seen for a day without telling the office she is headed out of town. They called us over the last bad snow storm because she happened to be visiting with us when it moved in and they didn't know where she was at.

There is nothing sad about it. Combine it with the fact that she has many friends there from her old life, friends she wouldn't have if she lived with us some 20+ miles away or, worse yet, with her son 200+ miles away in Akron and you get a much happier and healthier 86 year-old widow.

And what if parents don't have children? I think communal living is definitely a better solution than living alone and isolation which can come with it.

"And what if parents don't have children?"

A) I just started with something similar (and more grammatically correct) and...

B) They wouldn't be parents if they didn't have kids.

Mine was a direct reply to 'but I think it's better for the parents to live with the children.'

Not all old people are parents. Or Maybe their kids were killed in a patriotic war protecting their country... or whatever.

Oh, and I guess my 92 year old grandma should live with my aging and frail 70 year old parents even though they can barely take care of themselves in their house. Or should all three of them come live with me, their nearest relative, along with my mother in law. I'm sure they wouldn't mind 6 people in 1960 three bedroom brick ranch. Only one upstairs bath and shower. Only a two car garage. And I can't stay home from work to take care of them...

This isn't the pioneer days when framing reigned supreme and houses were generational. I'm no farmer and I can rush in from a field when grandma takes a spill. I'm 25 miles away in an office in another city.

As was mine, Ora. It was just the grammar about "parents not having children". To be a parent, they must have a child, even if that child died in infancy.

Thucy is wrong on more than just the "what if there are no kids" standpoint.

This is not a nursing home - we're talking about places like America House -- these are very nice facilities. My grandmother moved to one when she got old, and it was perfect. It offered her independence when she wanted it, care when she wanted it. She had her own apartment - it was hers, just like any other apartment, except that the building also hd a cafeteria, a hot tub, nursing care, etc if she wanted to take advantage of them.

You ar assuming that every old person wants to give up their independence and move in with the kids. You - of course - are wrong. That is an option for some, not all.

In this case, you - as an old person - have to option of moving in to a facility with other people your age, with similar llikes, dislikes, etc.

Other problems with the Thucy solution -- what if the kids work, as many people work in to their 60's and even 70's...meaning they can't be there 24/7 to care for their elderly parents..

On a rather practical level - some families just don't get along that well to move in together...and that doesn't mean it's the kids fault. Some parents are assholes.

Hell, I think of this sort of otpion as college dormitory for old folks. I had a blast living in the dorms - my only responsibility was cleaning my own space and doing laundry. Frankly, I hope to god I can find a decent place to live with like-minded people when I'm old with a decent cafeteria if I want, etc and be able to shuffle down the hall and pound on old Draugnar's door if I want to get up a game.

My mom in law hss a condo of sorts. Her own garage attached to a single story two bedroom two bath cottage. Like half a single story duplex.

"Oh, and I guess my 92 year old grandma should live with my aging and frail 70 year old parents even though they can barely take care of themselves in their house."

No, No, No, your frail 70 year old parents should clearly be living with you, and i think that means their grandma should be living with your children??

My parents grand parents have been dead a *long* time. My last great grandmother died when I was 16 or 17, more than 30 years ago.she would have been older than Bilbo at the beginning of Fellowship. If memory serves, she was 92, so she would be almost 125.

As far as anyone living with my kids, wouldn't Peg and I have to have kids? She turns 60 in 2015 and I'm rapidly aria hung 50, so that ain't happening.