-
Yoani Sánchez Uncaged
April 12, 2013 | 163 comments
-
Take the Helmets Off
February 4, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Let’s Pay Women Not to Abort
January 23, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Millennial Divide
January 22, 2013 | 30 comments
-
The Meaninglessness of Opinion Polls on Roe v. Wade
January 17, 2013 | 68 comments
Special Report
Changing the Verb of Homelessness
Obama should follow Bush on combating homelessness.
“If good intentions, well-meaning programs and humanitarian
gestures could end homelessness, it would have been history
decades ago.”
— Philip Mangano, Executive Director, United
States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Of all the shortcomings of the Bush presidency, perhaps none was as frustrating to conservatives as its poor communications strategy. The problem wasn’t just the administration’s habit of announcing policies without sufficiently explaining them, or its failure to defend unpopular policies. Most discouraging was its reluctance to talk about policies that proved wildly successful.
Last week, the president’s office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives released a report called “Innovations in Compassion.” The report highlights some of the triumphs of the much-maligned agency, among which is this gem: a nearly one-third decrease in chronic homelessness between 2005 and 2007.
The man most responsible for the precipitous drop in homelessness is Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. In a recent interview, Mangano talked to me about the secret to his success, which is rooted in his mission “to change the verb of homelessness. After 20 years of managing the crisis, our intent was ending the disgrace.”
This small shift in emphasis has produced great results. Besides the 30 percent decrease in chronic homelessness (defined as homelessness of at least one year of a person with serious mental illness and/or drug or alcohol addiction), there was a 12 percent reduction in overall homelessness nationally (from 763,000 to 672,000). Also, there was an almost 40 percent decrease in the number of homeless veterans between 2001 and 2007.
In order to move from managing homelessness to ending it, Mangano recognized the need for his agency to get rid of the old strategies. Under President Clinton, funding was tripled for programs to decrease homelessness, but the number of homeless only increased. “We had been busy servicing homeless people,” Mangano says, “spending more money without any results.”
So when he was appointed by President Bush to lead the council in 2002, Mangano and his team implemented an approach to homelessness that was entirely appropriate for the administration of the first president with an MBA. “For many years,” Mangano says, “the issue of homelessness was driven by anecdote, conjecture, guess work and feeling.” But with Mangano at the helm, the touchy-feelyness was replaced by a results-oriented business approach rooted in evidence and data.
And, predictably, the evidence showed that moving chronically homeless people into housing units was the only reliable way to end chronic homelessness.
The council’s “housing first” strategy was truly an innovation in compassion. But it also sounded expensive. And the seven consecutive years of record resources targeted to homeless people (this year’s budget includes an unprecedented eighth year of record resources for homelessness) might make fiscal conservatives wince. But Mangano’s position is: What’s cheaper: putting homeless people in homes, or letting them cycle through shelters, hospital emergency rooms, jails and the street?
He says, “We discovered through our research that these are some of the most expensive people to the public purse, randomly ricocheting through very expensive primary health, behavioral health, law enforcement and court systems.” The results of 65 cost studies revealed that the true costs of chronic homelessness are staggering, between $35,000 and $150,000 a year per person.
Consider these examples.
• Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program tracked 119 persons who were chronically homeless for 5 years and found that they made more than 18,000 emergency room visits at an average cost of $1000 per visit.
• One study found two homeless men in Reno cost the city over $100,000 each in health and law enforcement in one year.
• The University of California at San Diego followed 15 chronically homeless street people for 18 months and found that they cost the city $200,000 per person. As one official put it, “We could have placed them in condos with ocean front views for less.”
Contrast those numbers with the annual cost of supportive housing for homeless people, which runs between $13,000 and $25,000 per year, per person. And, importantly, once homeless people have homes, the expense is reduced further as they build new lives and address the costly correlates of homelessness, such as mental illness, substance abuse and corrections. In Mangano’s words, “A place to live is most likely to create a trajectory out of dependence, toward self-sufficiency.”
About the Author
Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.
Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 8:30AM
fine.
but why do we need conservatives, even if they are faith-oriented, pushing lib programs? homes are less expensive than revolving door shelters but they cost somebody else-- not you.
but do whatever you want, just do it and get somebody who is more well off than you to pay for flotsam & jetsam. we're so big.
THEN say "we don't like sloths and sluggards".
and ne'er do wells.
Appleby| 1.23.09 @ 9:40AM
Follow the Katrina Relocation Principle too: put them in neighbourhoods surrounded by normal people doing normal things in a normal way. What they need next after a place to live is an example of what life is like for people who are not caught in the gears, so they can measure their progress and know what to strive for.
A large number of people rendered homeless by Katrina moved from the passive-aggressive slum dwelling parasite class to the working class when they came to Alabama to work for Hyundai. I know this by personal observation and have heard a number of people say that they did not realize a life like this was possible for them until they saw people like themselves living that sort of life.
Get them out of surroundings that emphasize hopelessness and passivity and show them what's possible, and you'll be surprised what they can do.
Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 9:49AM
yes, but who pays for relocation and housing.
as an ex-lib i have a 'right' to know. if others pay for it, then swell; if we pay for it, then it isn't.
you wouldnt suggest it would be paid for by church basket donations, would you?
Scot| 1.23.09 @ 10:13AM
The point is we already pay a ton to the program and this man has found a way to actually save the Govt money. That is a conservative principle. The next step is to show your cost savings so that the govt can spend less in that program so we can pay less in taxes.
Another thought, Why aren't we trying to find the families of these people? Is that part of the program. The individuals families if capable should shoulder most the cost to take care of them. I know of a couple situations where the homeless person is mentally ill and ran away from home and the family didn't know where they went. Seems simple and obvious to do.
Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 10:17AM
alrighty, it does help taxpayers-- but whats the catch?:
cost goes up each decade?
WJ| 1.23.09 @ 12:23PM
I favor the point of the article and applaud the introduction of data. However, my first instinct is telling me to be suspicious of the cost data.
For example, was that $200K cost per person ($3M) that UCSD estimated truly a marginal increase of cash out the door for San Diego??
If those particular 15 homeless were magically moved to another city, would San Diego spend $3M less in cash? If the answer is no, then we are not comparing the same things.
I would be willing to be that the $200K per person cost comes from allocating existing police, hospital, etc. costs to those homeless people. Yes, they took resources away from other people, but as a pure marginal cost increase, I have my doubts.
Dustoff| 1.23.09 @ 1:03PM
In Seattle, we built a condo for drunks trying to quit... The really dumb part. They can still drink in their rooms.
Jezzzz )-:
Jindo| 1.23.09 @ 2:13PM
This is an example of why Republicans are no longer in power. As conservatives we should believe it is not the proper role of the federal govt to push a social agenda and provide charity; not it's okay as long as it's our agenda.
Michele San Pietro| 1.23.09 @ 3:12PM
The only effective way to combat homelessness is to give the homeless a job. Republicans have understood that for a long time, whereas Democrats still don't understand a thing.
Jeremiah| 1.23.09 @ 3:26PM
Appleby --
I think you're the most sensible person the posts around here, and this is a good thing you've written.
Many, many poor people could thrive with a very little financial help, if they had good models to follow, teaching them how to live as productive persons.
I'm afraid many of our homeless are tragically ill, mentally and physically. Here where I live, many suffer paranoid delusions that prevent them from coming into shelters, even when the temperatures dip below zero.
I find myself wishing that we went back to policies that decided these matters before "deinstitutionalization," so that so many weren't left to die in the streets because are ill.
len| 1.23.09 @ 4:35PM
Just a quick question, please cite the Constitutional authority for this? Why do so many have trouble distinguishing a FEDERAL government from a NATIONAL government? Just one more to continue growing an oversized beast, that in truth was established to do very little.
Pingback| 1.23.09 @ 5:54PM
Changing the Verb of Homelessness « Depravity links to this page.
mark gunderman | 1.23.09 @ 7:10PM
For more on homelessness, see Good Shepherd Alliance "Six Steps to Self Suffciency" programs in Ashburn, Virginia.
Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 11:04PM
if you cared so much Jeremiah, you'd volunteer for the homeless; and if you do already, then put in more hours. you do your thing, we'll do ours.
just don't guilt trip anyone, Jerry boy. YOU change the status quo.
Alan Brooks| 1.23.09 @ 11:31PM
so sick of being liberal guilt-tripped. my parents cared about all the po' miserable 'pressed peoples-- except their own children.
'especially people
who care about strangers
who care about evil
and social injustice
do you only care about
the bleeding crowd
how about a needing friend?'
David Govett| 1.24.09 @ 1:33PM
Have we Americans lucked out yet again? Could the Pelosi Recession have happened at a more opportune time? As things stand, when the Democrats move to implement their socialist agenda, there will be no money--and, more importantly, no popular will--to implement it. America, you've done it again!
Jeremiah| 1.24.09 @ 4:27PM
"THE PELOSI Recession"
Oh, David Govett, that's marvelous comedy.
Pelosi Recession!
Weeks before Obama had even taken office, Limbaugh was referring to it as the "Obama recession," and Sean Hannity, Prince of Dolts, was blaming it on Carter!
So which is it, conservatives?
Clinton brought 9.11 on us; this we know.
Carter caused the housing bubble.
The recession is the fault of Nancy Pelosi.
Some of you sometimes ask why liberals bother to visit this site.
Here's your answer. It's hilarious fun.
Gunderman| 1.24.09 @ 5:08PM
Who Are the Homeless?
Homelessness in Loudoun County has been on the rise for ten years. A growing shortage of affordable housing and a simultaneous increase in poverty are mainly to blame.
Homelessness and poverty are inextricably linked. Low-income people struggle to pay for housing, groceries, childcare, health care, and education. Imagine the difficulty of choosing between these necessities when limited resources will not cover them all. Often it is the rent payment that must be eliminated. Being poor equates to being an illness, an accident, or a paycheck away from living on the streets.
Loudoun County’s lack of affordable housing and high cost of living mean that many homeless people are actually working full time or have only recently lost their job. Some people move into the county for a better paying job only to find out that they cannot afford housing. Others experience job layoffs, divorce, drug or alcohol abuse or other trauma that leave them with insufficient resources to pay rent. Many come to the shelter struggling with mental health issues or are veterans with a medical disability.
Homelessness inevitably contributes to serious health problems. Illnesses that are closely associated with poverty – tuberculosis, AIDS and malnutrition ravage the homeless population. Health problems that exist subtly at other income levels such as alcoholism, mental illness, diabetes, hypertension, and physical disability are prominent in the population living on the streets. People without shelter fall prey to parasites, frostbite, infection, violence and hopelessness. For more information about suburban homelessness, go see Good Shepherd Alliance web site at loudounhomeless.org. God's grace is great.
Ruben B Botello | 1.24.09 @ 9:03PM
Dear President Obama:
I have been in and out of homelessness since being honorably discharged as a USMC Vietnam veteran in 1969. I wound up homeless then, in and out of homelessness with my two sons in the Eighties, and homeless on my own again in the Nineties.
I started the American Homeless Society in 1987 while my sons and I were homeless in California. I have been in several hunger strikes, marches and demonstrations for homeless rights since then but have seen little progress.
My longest hunger strike was 58 days against President Reagan’s “trickle down” economic policies that created much more instead of less homelessness in our country. You now speak about fixing our nation’s economy from the “bottom up” and that should mean you are starting by ending involuntary homelessness at the bottom.
HUD Secretary Philip Mangano has been promoting 10-year plans to end homelessness in major cities across the country on behalf of the Bush Administration for the past few years. We would hope and pray you make a similar commitment to abolish homelessness but throughout our nation, not just in individual cities because there are far more homeless than these urban plans will ever reach.
Slavery was abolished in America over a century ago; why not abolish homelessness today, Mr. Obama? Homelessness is just as bad as slavery in several ways and much worse in others.
Men, women and children from all the races, colors, cultures, nationalities, ethnicities, religions and creeds in our diverse society find themselves homeless daily. They are forced to endure harassment, discrimination and persecution in our nation today much like the slaves President Lincoln’s armies fought to free in the Nineteenth Century.
America’s homeless are also forced to endure nature’s harshest conditions without warm homes or shelter for protection; without good food and nutrition; without essential hygiene, medicine and healthcare; and without the necessary education, training or experience required to qualify for the dwindling supply of jobs in today’s worsening economy. Many of America’s homeless today are even employed but underemployed and unable to afford existing rentals while thousands of others are altogether unemployable.
How can our great nation permit so many of these poor souls to continue to suffer and die needlessly on our streets? I joined the Marines to fight for my country in the Sixties so that all Americans could have a better life, not just the rich and well-to-do who are receiving all the bailouts today.
The list of barriers and obstacles facing today’s homeless goes on and on, Mr. Obama. Please, if you are serious about fixing our nation’s economy from the bottom-up, begin at the real bottom by making a firm commitment to end involuntary homelessness throughout our country without further ado.
Sincerely,
Ruben Botello, Founder
AMERICAN HOMELESS SOCIETY
http://sananda.tripod.com/homeless/ahs1.html
Thomas| 1.25.09 @ 11:38AM
Perhaps this program is having a significant impact upon chronic homelessness, perhaps not. I would have to see how they are calculating the homeless statistics. On thing that disturbs me, however is the definition being used for chronic homelessness; chronic homelessness (defined as homelessness of at least one year of a person with serious mental illness and/or drug or alcohol addiction). If a homeless person is living in a subsidized residence for a week during that year, is that enough to place that person into a category other than "chronic homeless"? I have no empirical data with which to make a definitive comment on this program, but I have developed a strong suspicion of government statistics.
Of course, having dealt with the homeless for years, I find it difficult to believe that this program is having a significant impact on the amount of time that a chronically homeless person spends living on the streets. But, you never know.
RightofRush| 1.27.09 @ 5:28PM
The is a doable solution to homelessnes so out of the box that it is unbeknownest to any box.
There are many closed military bases in this country. Why now reopen them as homes to the homeles? They could be fitted out with clinics and off campus college facilities. As Ruben's post makes clear, to be homeless is not to be without talent. Those talents could be used in the administration of the reopened bases, and most of the homeless could be employed to make and keep the bases operational.
RightofRush| 1.27.09 @ 5:40PM
Special note to Ruben:
Thank you for your service.
The sins that this country commited in sending its youth to fight in wars that were not designed to be won has soured me on both major parties.
I door-belled for Barry Goldwater and I know that he would have not so misused our resources and our young as did LBJ(may he still be roasting in Hell).
There is a chance though, that there would now be Hanoi harbor and Haiphong Bay if Barry would have won.
hgfhgf| 11.18.09 @ 8:04PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows
hgfhgf| 1.11.10 @ 2:19AM
FLV to WMV Converter,
Free FLV to WMV converter