Live data from Hacker News

How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

npr.org

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#41

I think this is an excellent solution, but it is one that won't be replicable by cities like NY, Seattle, or San Francisco until they fix their housing cost problems. If you think about it from a systems perspective, with inflows and outflows, you will begin to see the problem. 1) Inflows: higher housing costs increase the inflow into homelessness. Whether it is job loss, drug addiction, mental illness, or whatever..…

Those cities are also destinations for migrant homeless. How would this SLC system cope if new homeless were showing everyday from out of city like they are in Seattle or SF, or where I live as the eastern street youth population migrates out here every winter to avoid the cold.

Seems like every city would have to try the SLC model instead of putting their homeless on a bus with a one way ticket.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#42
post #36
post #6

Years ago I read about an excellent effort in Italy to reduce the homeless problems there. They examined what made folk homeless and what kept them there. A big focus was on re-employment and having a fixed postal address. Those who lost their jobs and then their homes with no fixed address were unable to obtain another job and hence fell into a spiral of chronic homelessness. One of the big takeaways from Italian po…

How much does mental illness play into homelessness in Italy? Seems to be a common issues here in the US.

From what I've seen, this feeling might be due to the fact that mentally ill people are overly "visible" because they make way more "disturbance" if I may say.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#43

I'll weigh in from a basic income perspective... I've held for a while that a homeless person getting into housing solves one of the biggest time sinks they have. Once the time is freed up, they are more comfortable, safer and can therefore sleep better, and they can think and make a plan to get re-integrated into mainstream society. Commenters note that 'housing first' does not work in larger cities like San Francis…

The system proposed here is almost the exact opposite of a basic income: What Powered Utah's Success...And finally, most of the advocates and agencies in Utah know each other and work well with each other. They also know most of the homeless people by name...One person recommends a name from the list...Ed Snoddy, who does medical outreach for Volunteers of America, a faith-based nonprofit, speaks up...."He is notorio…

It strikes me that the militant egalitarianism of the present age has reached its peak. The intolerant maximalism of its vulgar shamans has made such a grim backdrop that even modest efforts to hold people responsible for their actions create a bright contrast to the sad state of urban America.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#44

I'll weigh in from a basic income perspective... I've held for a while that a homeless person getting into housing solves one of the biggest time sinks they have. Once the time is freed up, they are more comfortable, safer and can therefore sleep better, and they can think and make a plan to get re-integrated into mainstream society. Commenters note that 'housing first' does not work in larger cities like San Francis…

> Were a basic income in place, homeless persons would be more mobile and could afford basic accommodations in many more places.

Do you have any evidence that this would be the outcome? What makes you say that much of the money would go towards housing in the first place?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#45

I think this is an excellent solution, but it is one that won't be replicable by cities like NY, Seattle, or San Francisco until they fix their housing cost problems. If you think about it from a systems perspective, with inflows and outflows, you will begin to see the problem. 1) Inflows: higher housing costs increase the inflow into homelessness. Whether it is job loss, drug addiction, mental illness, or whatever..…

You're ignoring homeless migration, the nature of mental illness, and the fact that people can move. The majority of homeless people you see on the street in cities like Seattle are not people who want help or will utilize it effectively -- they're people who have burned bridges that keep most people who are down on their luck in secondary homelessness.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#46

homelessness is tough. In our medium size city (Columbia, SC) we have roughly 1,400 homeless and no one (myself included) seems to know what to do. I feel like affordable/free housing has been tried before, and you end up with "projects" with a drug problem. I wonder how they expect this will be different. Am I off here? Does it not seem naive to say: "they're homeless, so let's just give them an apartment and say ou…

The problem with your theories is that actual evidence says the programs work far better than anything else we've tried. (I don't intend that to be mean or glib).

These programs typically assign a caseworker who gets to know the homeless people and forms a relationship with them. The early period involves a lot of hand-holding and helping the homeless figure out (or re-discover) how to live a productive adult life.

Most people who end up homeless turn to drugs, prostitution, and have any existing mental problems hugely exacerbated AFTER they become homeless. In other cases it is some other underlying situation (abusive childhood, etc) that triggers drug use that leads to homelessness.

There's also a strong selection effect: many people who become homeless quickly attempt to find employment and a new place to live. Those who don't get out of being homeless quickly become unemployable and thus are locked into the cycle.

As a society we seem to be stuck in this Victorian-era meme that moral failure brings calamity upon people (aka the Just World fallacy).

That applies to success the same as failure... being ambitious and smart is a necessary but not sufficient condition to become successful.

If Mark Zuckerberg got hit by a drunk driver (through no fault of his own) and became a paraplegic while at Harvard he wouldn't be a billionaire today. If he hadn't gotten into Harvard would he have had the connections to get funding and start Facebook? A million things entirely outside his control had to go right for him to be successful. It was a combination of his character, circumstances, and pure luck. If you don't have all three you won't be successful.

Similarly it doesn't take much weakness or bad luck to completely ruin someone's life.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#47

I think this is an excellent solution, but it is one that won't be replicable by cities like NY, Seattle, or San Francisco until they fix their housing cost problems. If you think about it from a systems perspective, with inflows and outflows, you will begin to see the problem. 1) Inflows: higher housing costs increase the inflow into homelessness. Whether it is job loss, drug addiction, mental illness, or whatever..…

You're ignoring homeless migration, the nature of mental illness, and the fact that people can move. The majority of homeless people you see on the street in cities like Seattle are not people who want help or will utilize it effectively -- they're people who have burned bridges that keep most people who are down on their luck in secondary homelessness.

You sound like an expert on the homeless in Seattle. Do you actually know this for a fact or are you just speculating? Have you talked to the homeless there and seen data? Do you realize mental health issues can cause people to burn bridges even if that's not what they want to do?

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#48
I have several friends who are homeless or who have been homeless. It's really difficult to overstate how hard it is to get back out of homelessness, once you reach that point, without significant outside help.

Think of all of the stuff most folks take for granted that are pretty much mandatory in most US cities in order to get and keep a job:

1. ID. So many of the homeless folks I know have had significant trouble obtaining ID after losing it or having it stolen, or having never had one because they left home at a very young age, etc. I can't count the number of conversations I've had trying to assist folks get an ID. Our governments don't make it easy (you need at least birth certificate and Social Security card, and some sort of mail showing where you live in some cases). For people without cooperative family or with no living parents, this step is very tough. It's stupid to think that lack of a tiny thing like ID is why so many people are without work and without homes, but, it's a reality.

2. Transportation. If you have no car in most US cities, it's hard to have a job. This one reason metropolitan areas are so much more densely populated by homeless folks; mass transit tends to be most accessible in the city center.

3. Staying clean. Would you hire someone who smells bad or looks dirty for any job? Homeless folks feel invisible because people don't want to be near dirty/smelly people of indeterminate mental health. Even if someone is perfectly able to do a job, being dirty is a guarantee they won't get the job.

4. No reliable way to reach them, if someone does decide to hire them. When I hear/see someone being hostile to a homeless or poor person because they are lucky enough to have a smart phone (I guess because a phone is an expensive thing), I'm just aghast. How the hell do they expect a homeless person to get out of homelessness without a phone, email, and a way to get online? So many low-level jobs have online application processes and require interaction via email and web in order to get the job.

5. Not getting a decent night's sleep, ever. Without a home, sleeping is a challenge every single day. If there are enough beds in the shelters (never the case in any city I've lived in), they have to be in the shelter by a certain time and have to be out very early (6AM is the "checkout time" at many shelters). This does double harm. The inflexible schedule prevents folks from holding jobs that conflict with that strict schedule, like second shift and night shift work, which often pays reasonably well, and has low barriers to entry. And, it also means they probably are running on an hour or two less sleep than a human actually needs to thrive. I hung out in downtown Eugene recently, and I was told that there was at least one fight, every single night. One broke out across the street within an hour of that conversation. I don't know that poor sleep is the cause of the frequent violence, but I'm confident it's a major contributing factor (and the science on sleep deprivation backs that theory up). Now, these were street kids, who don't go to shelters because the rules are too strict for them, and they sleep in sleeping bags and tents, but they, too, aren't getting enough sleep.

In short, having a home makes a huge difference in nearly every element of chronic poverty, and that, paired with a consistent income, are the things that most indicate whether someone will be able to become a self-sufficient functioning member of society again. This is a great idea, and it's awesome that Utah has had such great success with it. I hope more cities and states implement these ideas.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#49

I think this is an excellent solution, but it is one that won't be replicable by cities like NY, Seattle, or San Francisco until they fix their housing cost problems. If you think about it from a systems perspective, with inflows and outflows, you will begin to see the problem. 1) Inflows: higher housing costs increase the inflow into homelessness. Whether it is job loss, drug addiction, mental illness, or whatever..…

You're ignoring homeless migration, the nature of mental illness, and the fact that people can move. The majority of homeless people you see on the street in cities like Seattle are not people who want help or will utilize it effectively -- they're people who have burned bridges that keep most people who are down on their luck in secondary homelessness.

I'm not ignoring any of that. Chronic and migrant homelessness exist, but they aren't anywhere near a majority of the population. The best data we have available shows chronic homelessness to be between 10-20% of the homeless population. And just because they are chronically homeless doesn't mean they don't want or can't benefit from help. Disability, mental as well as physical, is the largest known contributor to chronic homelessness and most forms of disability are treatable, but treatments are less effective when basic needs like housing are not met.

Re: How Utah Reduced Chronic Homelessness (2015)

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt P.O. boxes should be free for those that are homeless. If said box goes unused it is put back into general use. Verification could be supplied by the county.

> I always felt P.O. boxes should be free for those that are homeless. If said box goes unused it is put back into general use. They (basically) already are. USPS provides free mailing service for people who don't have a fixed address, and you can use that as your street address (unlike PO boxes, which are invalid for use in circumstances that require a street address). They'll hold onto any mail addressed to you for…

Also, many USPS locations allow you to use the address of the building and to append the P.O. Box similar to an apartment number.
Post reply on HN