There is far too little information in the article to judge the success or failure of the idea. Good to see new solutions being trialed though.

Back in the day the homeless were picked up and put in group homes to get them off the streets, where they were housed, fed, given treatment, etc.

The the Libtards came along and said you can't do that...that's kidnapping...etc bullshit etc bullshit...

But if you scoop them off the street and throw them in to a government paid-for apartment you are compassionate and wise...even though you have done nothing to solve the problem that created their homelessness in the first place, which - top of the list - includes substance abuse and mental illness.

More mis-guided Libtardism. Oh sure...it "solves the problem". The problem being "Those icky people are out of my sight"...


Yes...I know...it's a Republican state, blah blah blah...

I think it's absolutely fine, provided that they should enter into public service contract whereby they do something to benefit the state, i.e. picking up trash, painting, cleaning, paying taxes, and maintaining a clean record and property. Giving more shit away for free with no expectations or exchange will only promote more degredation in our society... sad, but true.

COTW....GASP!! You can't do THAT!! Make someone work for their government check?!?!? But...but...but that's slavery. That's unfair! People shouldn't have to work to have a house and food and comfort?!?!

oh, and the banks will get all the more rich and more powerful, and those of us that work will get all the more insignificant. I might quit my job then I can finally afford a house.

'More mis-guided Libtardism. Oh sure...it "solves the problem". The problem being "Those icky people are out of my sight"...'

Is this libtarism being done by the republican party in Utah? It's not really my thing as i'm not an american, and have never been to Utah - but are you calling a these republican-libtards?

'Giving more shit away for free with no expectations or exchange will only promote more degredation in our society... sad, but true.' - even if this particular spending saves money (as suggested by the program)

Does it promote dependency on the state? I mean, it provides shelter, but it doesn't provide meaning in their life, that's something people still have to find for themselves...

orathaic- you're wonderfully naive. Most (not all, mind you) check-takers don't seek meaning in their life, lest you define "meaning" as a 40 of old english.

Em, it's not for me or you to define what meaning means for someone else... But i'll be the first to admit that this is not on offer in the any housing program, nor infact most other government run programs...

I'm not naive, i'm never said anything other than 'that's something people still have to find for themselves...'

orothaic- you're right. And I realised that I'm talking about 2 different issues: housing for the homeless and monetary assistance, two similar but different topics. I don't mean to sound bitter, but I really think that government providing these things inhibits the greater proportion of the mass from finding meaning in their lives. It enables stagnancy, I've seen it firsthand. Unrelated to the moral issue, I ask the question "who owns these properties?" I must assume that banks do. If so, I fear yet another collusion between banks and government. Since I am uninformed on this issue, I'll just wait for someone to enlighten me.

At Orath -- yes, I do believe that if the Republi-pukes in Utah are responsible for this, then they have dipped a toe...maybe eve a whoe foot...firmly in the pool of Libtardism, because is sure as hell isn't a conservative idea.

But Republicans =/= Conservative. there is very little difference anymore between the "Parties" (Republican v. Democrat) which is why many people are abandoning those labels.

" it provides shelter, but it doesn't provide meaning in their life"


lol Are you for real? Day time talk shows and night time "reality tv" is all the meaning the American sheeple need anymore...especially if they are getting enough through scamming the system to keep their blood-alcohol level high enough...

@COTW - yes, it is entirely probably that banks / property developers (but let's just say the rich) and they are entirely happy to have the government pay them rent - probably because it increases the amount of money going into rental property and supply/demand mechanics means they make more money.

Regardless of any collusion, they are directly benefiting from government spending, so there is certainly potential for corruption.

On the other hand, these former homeless are also directly benefiting, but are probably not in a position of power to abuse it.

The government meanwhile is saving money, so the tax-payer should be happy, right?

The psychological issue is a serious one, how do you believe in yourself if you have to rely on government hand outs, and how do you benefit yourself or your community if you don't believe in yourself.

They probably believe in themselves more than they did when they were hungry and cold on the streets.

I'm not convinced the government is saving money. Saying the cost of the flat and social worker is cheaper than hospital and jail fees is great, but it assumes that, once armed with the flat, the formerly homeless chap is immune to illness and totally crime free. I suspect that assumption is inaccurate.

Having said that, even if the balance of payments is skewed in the wrong direction, that does not necessarily make it a bad idea.

Not all, but a great many of the people who are homeless are people who ought to be in mental hospitals. Since we've largely done away with involuntary commitment for mental health problems, these people have nowhere else to go. Without the structure of a medical institution they don't regularly take their meds, either because they just don't have the disciple for what may be a complicated regime or because they think they've been cured when the meds make their problems go away. When the inevitable relapse comes they wind up on the street.


So the problem is not really a lack of homes. Programs already exist for public housing and unemployment and disability aid to keep people in homes they already have. Much of the homeless problem is involves people who due to some mental defect can't function in normal society without medication. Instead of funneling resources into still more welfare schemes, we should use those resources to support mental health institutions which provide people who can be made functional with the care they need to get there and keep those who can't function committed indefinitely.

If that sounds too much like Cuckoo's Nest ask yourself if it's really worse than the system we have now.

/\ Yeah...that's what I already said...

Not really

I used to manage a property for a private developer that had built an apartment project for chronically homeless people. (By chronically, they meant for at least three years homeless.)

The identified problem was that a lot of the people in my city who have been homeless a long time have mental illness that is not debilitating enough that they need to be (or indeed can get into) a long-term facility, but is severe enough that it prevents them from having gainful employment. For many of them, there was no way to schedule follow-up medical visits or other assistance because they had no address or phone.

The theory was that if they could get people into stable, independent, community housing (as opposed to facilities where they can't come and go at will) with follow-up, they could get people into proper treatment, get them job counseling and/or training, and other assistance, and eventually move them out into their own housing.

The part that really made it work was that it was a partnership with a homeless shelter that staffed the place with social workers and mental health workers. Real professionals, those folks, well trained in medical issues that might arise, and given permission to talk to and/or call people's doctors when the need came up. A lot of the residents, in fact, I'd say solidly 40%, were Vietnam vets who were entitled to VA medical benefits, but didn't have support to claim them. Two of them, after they moved in, found out they actually had outstanding pensions from their combat service that they'd never claimed.

The results were pretty remarkable. The city homeless shelter went from having an average of 100 days a year full being over capacity and having to turn people away to ZERO. With the chronically homeless population in another program, the city was able to focus their assistance on short-term emergency services designed to keep people from becoming homeless in the first place.

When I left the job, nearly half the residents had some kind of job in the community, and on average about 20% were moving out of the development and into fully-independent housing each year. It was a really great model.

So I guess what I'm saying is that for some (SOME!) people and some (SOME!) communities, and with proper follow-up and support, a housing-first model can be a really powerful tool to help people break the cycle of homelessness.

Yes....yes I did....

"Back in the day the homeless were picked up and put in group homes to get them off the streets, where they were housed, fed, given treatment, etc.

The the Libtards came along and said you can't do that...that's kidnapping...etc bullshit etc bullshit...

But if you scoop them off the street and throw them in to a government paid-for apartment you are compassionate and wise...even though you have done nothing to solve the problem that created their homelessness in the first place, which - top of the list - includes substance abuse and mental illness."

If all that's true, then the questions become whether housing-first or institutionalization is more cost-effective and whether housing-first or institutionalization is more broadly applicable and successful.

There's no bootstraps, hard-libertarian position for genuinely mentally ill people without family support. Some level of state intervention is needed. It's a matter of what works best.

to hecks, of course.

Here's the link, if anyone's interested in learning more:
http://www.preblestreet.org/logan_place.php

The model was so successful that they opened up a second development a few years later for homeless women: http://www.preblestreet.org/florence_house.php

@Invictus, 'If all that's true, then the questions become whether housing-first or institutionalization is more cost-effective and whether housing-first or institutionalization is more broadly applicable and successful.'

I don't think that is a useful question. I think that it is situation dependent, some people would be better served by institutionalization and other with housing first.

So instead of asking which, you should ask, how much of each. And how to decide between them.

'It's a matter of what works best.' - yes, entirely.

@Invictus,
They estimated the government savings for the program at $972 per person per annum, resulting mostly from fewer police calls, a deep reduction in the number of jail stays, and a reduction in consumption of government-paid mental health services.

They published the cost analysis here: http://www.preblestreet.org/files/cost_analysis.pdf/55/

krellin, no. Yours is an exercise in almost-informed, misguided polemics. Mine's a post on the mental health aspect to homelessness.

"I think that it is situation dependent, some people would be better served by institutionalization and other with housing first. "

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong. It was cost effective because they screened the residents well and selected those for whom this model made sense.

<sigh> Invictus, no, mine was a description of what USED to occur -- i.e. homeless were picked up, put in a safe government environment and given treatment --- this addresses how the mental health aspect of homelessness AND the homelessness was treated.

I then compared this to the current idea -- which ignores the mental health aspect.

You, who apparently suffer from enough personal mental instability to perhaps require said government housing, are more interested in flinging your poo and acting superior than you are in actually reading and comprehending.

But yippee for you...we are all very impressed with your use of "big words". <#jealous>

hecks - correct me if I'm wrong, but this is still the old model to which I referred...it simply splits the housing, oversight and treatment in to different parts, instead of having them combined in to a single, efficient (in theory) institution.

"They estimated the government savings for the program at $972 per person per annum, resulting mostly from fewer police calls, a deep reduction in the number of jail stays, and a reduction in consumption of government-paid mental health services."

But is building homes cheaper than maintaining an adequately functioning mental health system like we used to have? It may be. I don't know. 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.


"I don't think that is a useful question. I think that it is situation dependent, some people would be better served by institutionalization and other with housing first."

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.