Housing first is a wonderful program. My stepmother has been running a similar pilot program in Greensboro, NC [1]. The thesis, which is holding up, is that the total cost to taxpayers is lower if the city pays the rent vs. emergency room visits, court system, police, etc. that result from homelessness.<p>Its also hard to implement. Its hard to find willing landlords with safe housing, and you want to spread folks out instead of ghettoizing them and creating a larger problem. The whole thing only works because of the ridiculously hard work the case managers and other social workers are putting in.<p>[1] <a href="http://greensborohousingcoalition.com/" rel="nofollow">http://greensborohousingcoalition.com/</a>
I love how they preempt the economy issue by saying that it is cheaper to house them than it is to treat them. Wouldn't it be even cheaper to put a limit on how much you can owe the public before you are turned away at the er? After all, this is the money that comes from the insurance premiums that have exploded recently.
Another worthwhile blog post sullied by an over-sensationalized headline, from the author of <i>How to Change the World</i>.<p>Let's be honest, this is triage to save the life of people dying on the streets. And frankly, I find that to be a far more galvanizing rallying cry than making homelessness history.
I will boldly predict that this won't work.<p>There are two types of homeless. The temporary homeless who have been caught out by circumstance and work mightily to avoid remaining homeless. These people tend to be homeless only for very short periods of time (days).<p>Then there are the chronically homeless, who are generally unable to live within societal norms. Many of these people are mentally ill. And for many of these people giving them a home and money will not solve their problems.