Utah's Strategy for the Homeless: Give Them Homes

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,431
Reaction score
549
By the end of 2015, the chronically homeless population of Utah may be virtually gone. And the secret is quite simple:

Give homes to the homeless.

"We call it housing first, employment second," said Lloyd Pendleton, director of Utah's Homeless Task Force.

Even Pendleton used to think trying to eradicate homelessness using such an approach was a foolish idea.

"I said: 'You guys must be smoking something. This is totally unrealistic,'" Pendleton said.

But the results are hard to dispute.


In 2005, Utah was home to 1,932 chronically homeless. By April 2015, there were only 178 — a 91 percent drop statewide.

"It's a philosophical shift in how we go about it," Pendleton said. "You put them in housing first ... and then help them begin to deal with the issues that caused them to be homeless."

Chronically homeless persons — those living on the streets for more than a year, or for four times in three years, and have a debilitating condition — make up 10 percent of Utah's homeless population but take up more than 50 percent of the state's resources for the homeless.

The Homeless Task Force reported it costs Utah $19,208 on average per year to care for a chronically homeless person, including related health and jail costs. Pendleton found that to house and provide a case worker for the same person costs the state about $7,800.


'They're part of our citizenry. They're not them and us. It's "we."'

"It's more humane, and it's cheaper," Pendleton said. "I call them 'homeless citizens.' They're part of our citizenry. They're not them and us. It's 'we.'"

For six years, Suzi Wright and her sons, DJ and Brian, shuttled among friend's homes, a van and the Salt Lake City homeless shelter.

After Utah gave Wright a two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment, she got a job as a cleaning supervisor at her apartment complex.

"It makes you feel a lot better about yourself, just being able to support your family," Wright said.

Those given apartments under the Housing First program pay rent of 30 percent of their income or $50, whichever is greater.

Army veteran Don Williams had been sleeping under a bush for 10 years when Utah offered him an apartment.

When he realized they weren't joking, he "jumped for joy," he said, laughing. "It was a blessing. A real blessing."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utahs-strategy-homeless-give-them-homes-n352966
 
I think being homeless one of most difficult to get out of it because many employers requires residence before hiring, so being homeless is catch 22 cycle for many, and I think they deserve some help, kinda of investment that society can contribute that would have positive returns.
 
I forget who or where it is but there are projects like this going up in a lot of places. One that I thought was neat was a tiny home complex that were giving out homes. It encourages people to take pride in their self and as a side benefit many people have dropped drug and alcohol dependencies. Which in many cases was not even required.
 
So, if the jobs and, "other issues" don't pan out, they still keep the homes. Where does the money come for the utilities of those homes? Logistically, how is this supported? If those other things are not taken care of by the recipient, more money is being spent, right?
 
VG, are u suggesting that no one deserves second chance and assistance?

To me, its part of society investment trying to help homeless get back on their feet. We have no idea how they lost their homes in the first place, it could be natural disaster like flooding, etc beyond their help, dont they deserve some help?

There are many homeless out there were forced without their choice, justificible? I dont think so.
 
VG, are u suggesting that no one deserves second chance and assistance? .

No, I'm suggesting that they are using the cost for the reasoning and the result may not lower the cost unless it is supported by jobs.
Unless you bring jobs for those people to work, the project doesn't have any legs on which to stand.

Feeding people doesn't work, teaching people to fish works.

The second chance has to come with the resources to make it succeed.
 
I can see thousands of homeless all over the country moving to Utah ... free house....
 
No, I'm suggesting that they are using the cost for the reasoning and the result may not lower the cost unless it is supported by jobs.
Unless you bring jobs for those people to work, the project doesn't have any legs on which to stand.

Feeding people doesn't work, teaching people to fish works.

The second chance has to come with the resources to make it succeed.

But giving them motivation and pride does work....
Curious you ever been homeless for an extended amount of time or even actually carry on a real conversation with someone who is and has been homeless for an extended amount of time.
 
Sorry, that was a question not a statement....
 
But giving them motivation and pride does work....
Curious you ever been homeless for an extended amount of time or even actually carry on a real conversation with someone who is and has been homeless for an extended amount of time.

I've never been homeless. I've worked(and bought my own clothes) since I was 12, with a hearing disability. I worked three jobs and put myself through college.

I've had plenty of conversation with people who don't want to work.

You see, the thing about being homeless is, like everything else, it's not a one size fits all. You can't solve drug abuse and mental illness with a home.
Those issues require real programs.

People don't need a hand out, they need a hand up.
 
I was homeless, long story but anyway I did got help, it wasnt easy but I got help. Did I ever become homeless again? The answer is nope, If I didnt have that chance, I will be 6 feet deep for sure. Sure after that I had jobs, one of them was best one, hey I paid taxes, so whose the winner?
 
I was homeless, long story but anyway I did got help, it wasnt easy but I got help. Did I ever become homeless again? The answer is nope, If I didnt have that chance, I will be 6 feet deep for sure. Sure after that I had jobs, one of them was best one, hey I paid taxes, so whose the winner?

You're the winner. But, that's my point, the job, you and some programs solved the problem. You have a job, a future and I'm guessing some skills.

A person with a home and no future is headed to the same place as a person without a home and no future.

I'm not against the houses. I'm just FOR the houses AND some future.
 
I've never been homeless. I've worked(and bought my own clothes) since I was 12, with a hearing disability. I worked three jobs and put myself through college.

I've had plenty of conversation with people who don't want to work.

You see, the thing about being homeless is, like everything else, it's not a one size fits all. You can't solve drug abuse and mental illness with a home.
Those issues require real programs.

People don't need a hand out, they need a hand up.

I have sat here and have written may different responses to this post... But until you walk in the shoes of someone who has been there or have spoke with and in depth with someone I am not sure how to explain it.
I can only say the house gives them the hand up, gives them something to have pride in, work towards and for, gives them goals and ambishions (sp) it gives them something to strive for.
Also, it gives them the first tool to getting a job. People will not hire the homeless, at least not with any income that actually does anything... Programs are well and good....but it is giving fish not teaching them to fish and instilling a passion for being out on the lake...
 
Programs are well and good....but it is giving fish not teaching them to fish and instilling a passion for being out on the lake...

I'm all for instilling passion, but passion alone doesn't make it happen.

The problem that Utah is trying to solve is, to put it in economic terms, too many workers chasing too few jobs(lets set aside mental illness and drug abuse for now). It's what you learn in your first year economics course in college. But, it's not that simple. Lets say the local coal mine has gone out of business. So, there many coal miners who have lost their homes. At the same time, however, the tech industry is in need of workers. The coal miners don't know anything about tech, so they are unemployable. Add to that, the tech workers make a lot of money so they pay more for houses, housing prices rise. If you understand this, you can understand that you can't fix the problem with homes alone. You can only fix this problem with job training. And, this problem is compounded by the fact that most coal miners don't have the education to take the courses needed for tech work.

IMO, the best way to solve this problem is to give a tax break to businesses who will hire and train uneducated workers. A tax break to hire homeless people. Make sense?

If others have a better solution, I'd love to read about it.
 
I'm all for instilling passion, but passion alone doesn't make it happen.

The problem that Utah is trying to solve is, to put it in economic terms, too many workers chasing too few jobs(lets set aside mental illness and drug abuse for now). It's what you learn in your first year economics course in college. But, it's not that simple. Lets say the local coal mine has gone out of business. So, there many coal miners who have lost their homes. At the same time, however, the tech industry is in need of workers. The coal miners don't know anything about tech, so they are unemployable. Add to that, the tech workers make a lot of money so they pay more for houses, housing prices rise. If you understand this, you can understand that you can't fix the problem with homes alone. You can only fix this problem with job training. And, this problem is compounded by the fact that most coal miners don't have the education to take the courses needed for tech work.

IMO, the best way to solve this problem is to give a tax break to businesses who will hire and train uneducated workers. A tax break to hire homeless people. Make sense?

If others have a better solution, I'd love to read about it.

I agree you cannot fix the problems with homes alone. However, it gives them the strive to seek to better themselves. I agree whole heartedly with your summery of economics and the current state of most employment fields right now. No one thing will resolve the issue. But giving them a home, food stamps, job training, and other assistance does make a whole package to someone that actually needs the help. Offering the home adds the desire to actually work for what they have and not become another state baby. Too often this curitcal step is only seen as necessary for women with children...single people, elderly, and otherwise disadvantaged are over looked, if they have a monkey of some sort... more so.
 
You're the winner. But, that's my point, the job, you and some programs solved the problem. You have a job, a future and I'm guessing some skills.

A person with a home and no future is headed to the same place as a person without a home and no future.

I'm not against the houses. I'm just FOR the houses AND some future.

No, its the society won with me, they helped me, and I end up paying taxes, unfortunately until few years ago. I am pretty much f.... up due to physical disabilities I have.
 
So, if the jobs and, "other issues" don't pan out, they still keep the homes. Where does the money come for the utilities of those homes? Logistically, how is this supported? If those other things are not taken care of by the recipient, more money is being spent, right?

well -
The Homeless Task Force reported it costs Utah $19,208 on average per year to care for a chronically homeless person, including related health and jail costs. Pendleton found that to house and provide a case worker for the same person costs the state about $7,800.

I guess we can't argue with the numbers. it's a lot cheaper to place them in homes than to throw them out on street and stuff them in jail.
 
I'm all for instilling passion, but passion alone doesn't make it happen.

The problem that Utah is trying to solve is, to put it in economic terms, too many workers chasing too few jobs(lets set aside mental illness and drug abuse for now). It's what you learn in your first year economics course in college. But, it's not that simple. Lets say the local coal mine has gone out of business. So, there many coal miners who have lost their homes. At the same time, however, the tech industry is in need of workers. The coal miners don't know anything about tech, so they are unemployable. Add to that, the tech workers make a lot of money so they pay more for houses, housing prices rise. If you understand this, you can understand that you can't fix the problem with homes alone. You can only fix this problem with job training. And, this problem is compounded by the fact that most coal miners don't have the education to take the courses needed for tech work.
eh - there are plenty plenty of other labor jobs for them coal workers. it's all about how willing are they to leave their comfort zone?

you know what keeps internet running? the grunts. somebody's gotta lay out these cables in a dirty dangerous condition (sewers, ocean, etc) and maintain it and tech guys ain't gonna do that.

beside.... coal miners don't live a long life anyway.

IMO, the best way to solve this problem is to give a tax break to businesses who will hire and train uneducated workers. A tax break to hire homeless people. Make sense?
we already are doing that.... for a long time....

for example... NY is offering 10 years tax-free for anybody opening/expanding business in NY. Texas has one of the best and highest tax incentives for businesses. and so many more...

If others have a better solution, I'd love to read about it.
better solution? why? Utah's already got it figured out. 91% homelessness drop statewide???
 
Back
Top