|
|
I’ve been working the front lines and in executive suites of homelessness for more than 13 years now. We sometimes joke in the office that working in the world of homelessness is like taking a “Jaded 101” course. We’ve gone through numerous government programs to address homelessness, heard promise after promise that homelessness will be solved, encountered neighborhood groups who think we are out to get them, and seen private and public funding come and go. Can’t blame us for being jaded once in a while.
But if you think we have suspicious perspectives, just talk to a reporter. My perception is that journalists have been pitched story after story so many times, that cynicism is part of their job description.
So when a study on cost avoidance was released a few weeks ago, I spoke to a local journalist about it. I explained how placing a homeless person into a supportive housing unit saves money since people living on the streets are high users of emergency rooms, law enforcement, and emergency services.
He didn’t buy it. Real simple, he said. If that paramedic is not helping Joe Smith, who is formerly homeless and now living in an apartment, the medic would be helping someone else. It’s not like the city can cut emergency service staff because you just placed someone in an apartment. Same for law enforcement.
I explained to him how in Long Beach, California we documented that the 350 people we surveyed on the streets utilized $4 million worth of medical services in the past year. If we helped these people get off the streets, the hospitals and emergency services wouldn’t be spending that much money on them.
His response… they would spend the same amount on other people.
Yesterday, a new Homeless Cost Avoidance Study was released by the Economic Roundtable and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. Like similar earlier studies, the results showed how public costs for “impaired homeless adults” decreased by 79% when a person was housed. Same arguments, same results.
I still agree with these cost avoidance studies. Housing people who are homeless is cheaper than keeping them on the streets. It is the most cost effective approach to resolving homelessness in the long run.
But cities are not going to be balancing their budgets if homelessness is lowered. I don’t think they will cut the number of police officers or emergency response workers on the streets.
Instead, emergency response workers and law enforcement officers would not have to be homeless social workers anymore.
And that’s a good result.
(Pic from www.excellentmanagementsystems.com)