Chronic homelessness – Break the cycle and save money

Picture by Ed Youdon

September 24, 2011

Earlier this year, the Charlotte city council voted 9-2 on a plan that would disperse low-income housing across the Queen City. The plan will distribute low-income housing to neighborhoods where public housing is lacking or nonexistent, while at the same time preempting the construction of more housing units in areas where clusters already exist.

Unfortunately, it is intellectual arrogance that has characterized much of urban planning in our city. While housing fulfills psychological needs, by providing a sense of personal space and privacy, housing alone does not rectify a homeless person's issues. Any amount of time living on the street exacerbates their issues. In truth, they require long-term care even after being housed.

Cities, states, and the federal government pay a substantial amount to provide the homeless with short-term shelter and other services. Our tax dollars are allocated towards a form of housing that is largely substandard, and in addition, shelters cost more to fund than standard conventional housing.

According to Charlotte’s Urban Ministries Housing to Homes program, the average annual community cost of a chronically homeless person, when factoring in shelter, hospital, and jail costs, is more than $37,000 per year. However, through the H2H program, the same individual costs taxpayers $11,000 annually -- while being provided with stable housing and case management. H2H has an 87 percent success rate, while also contributing to positive outcomes in health, sobriety, and stabilization.

The majority of Charlotte residents fail to recognize or acknowledge that housing the homeless would be far cheaper in the long run. Moreover, many area residents have long argued about the effectiveness of any form of public housing. Many residents have even adopted the "not in my backyard" stance on these kinds of proposals. In 2010, the Charlotte Housing Authority proposed to build a mixed-income housing complex in Ballantyne. Residents protested that they did not want low-income housing next to their million dollar homes, and that they feared an increase in crime and lower property values. Other housing proposals were also protested in Steele Creek and Northeast Charlotte.

Outside of the H2H program, individuals are often placed in a housing complex and are expected to conform to the behaviors of the existing neighborhood -- without any guidance or supportive services. The current policy must be re-engineered and must instead integrate the administration of other social services and job training programs.

The bottom line is that many residents of low-income housing are capable of bettering themselves, but they must be provided with the resources needed to do so.

While constructing new buildings and providing ongoing services is not cheap, if local, state, and federal governments redirected taxpayer dollars that currently fund emergency room visits, shelter stays, and the jailing of homeless individuals, there would be enough money to fund thousands of permanent supportive housing units. Permanent supportive housing is not only a proven solution to ending homelessness; it is the only cost-effective solution.

Comments Print Print