University Seminar 101

It is a small group that is ruining things for the whole. Certainly not all homeless are drunks and druggies, but a select few are so bad that they tarnish it for all. The same is true with auto emissions (smog) in Denver. William Gladwell tells of a man by the name of Donald Stedman, a chemist and auto-emissions specialist, who has invented a device to remotely check a vehicles carbon emissions and rate it either “Good” or “Poor.” (Gladwell) The majority of vehicles on the highway are decent or responsible about their carbon emissions, but a certain few are so terribly kept, they are nearly two hundred times worse. “We have at least one car in our database,” says Stedman, “which was emitting seventy grams of hydrocarbon per mile, which means you could almost drive a Honda Civic on the exhaust fumes from that car.” (Gladwell) Despite Denver’s attempts at managing the problem with emissions checks every year, it is still a small percentage of cars on the road causing over half of automobile pollution.
In both cases not all participants are huge contributors, but the major issues still remain. Homeless and dirty drivers are running amuck in the U.S. causing problems for everyone. So those very elite individuals should be well taken care of. Monitors should be strategically placed to catch those who fail the remote smog check and they should be dealt with. Homeless men and women with serious drug and alcohol problems should be given the attention and treatment they need to fix the problem, not simply manage it. Hospitals bills are piling up, but the problem is only being dealt with there. Those people lucky enough to care and try should be given the chance and the focus they deserve so that no money will have to be spent thereafter. Therein lies the problem with all of this- money. Who should have to pay for this, if anyone? Local communities who truly care and desire to fix the problem should rally to it and offer their say. If people acted locally on a national scale and devoted themselves, a change can undoubtedly be seen in time. Some cities and towns may bus bums to neighboring areas to manage their problems, but with treatment many of these problems can be eliminated for all.

The general public may not have strong opinions on what the best strategy of dealing with the homeless problem is, but there is a strong consensus on two points. First, something does need to be done, because many people view the homeless as an unsightly blemish on public land, and second, they are an unnecessary and unfair drain of our tax money. In his article Government Initiatives Can Reduce Homelessness, Manago states that the even though the chronically homeless comprise only 10% of the entire homeless population, they take up 50% of all the services and resources offered to homeless persons. Fortunately, there are cost effective ways to end homelessness. “Supportive housing strategies” with individual supervision and extra services such as mental health care and substance abuse classes, can help homeless people retain their apartments longer with fewer setbacks, moving them closer to the ultimate goal of self-sufficiency.
The Samaritan Initiative, detailed in Manago’s Government Initiatives, is a program designed to effectively end the homelessness problem using allotted funds and grants that would total less than the average spent on treatment and services for the homeless currently. It gives power to the Housing and Urban Development department, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs to jointly fund health care, mental health, and substance abuse programs for the chronically homeless. These programs will help treat some of the underlying problems that can make it difficult for people to get in control of their own lives. Also, it is designed to produce tangible evidence that the homeless population is reintegrating into normal society by getting significant numbers of homeless people off the street.

The problems that were re-occurring in the shelters were costing a lot of money for the economy. Some of the homeless would just enter the shelters to get free food and a place to stay and be back in the streets the next day. Instead of the continuous debate on homeless shelters, apartments came into the picture. Gladwell relates to a man by the name of Mangano, who had the idea to rent out apartments and push those chronically homeless people to tend to themselves by trying to live a normal life in an apartment. The idea of apartment system seemed be more reliable then just giving them shelter. The homeless had to work within the rules of the program. This program of renting out an apartment cost an average of $376 a month, but the background of the program was to stabilize the chronically homeless in order for them to regulate a normal working lifestyle (Gladwell, pg. 8).

Like any other typical daily problem, there were always some homeless people that just didn’t care. They would wreck the apartment building by throwing a huge obnoxious party and would receive a new apartment the next day, but it still cost less then having them on the street (Gladwell, pg. 8). The problem with this is that apartments are located near houses that may have families with little kids, and parents do not prefer to live next to any chronically ill homeless person that could endanger their children. “People are all for low-income housing as long as it is not in their suburb,” stated Tanner of the Cato Institute (Triplett, pg. 6). It is hard to find apartments that aren’t right next to houses, so this creates another serious problem. To this day, law enforcement, shelters, and apartments have helped out tremendously towards a solution to end homelessness. The economy is striving to put those whom are homeless on the right path. They could help more people like Murray who are willing to cooperate when monitored and possibly save their lives. In response to Gladwell’s ending to his essay, Murray was still a loving human being; he just took a wrong turn on life’s winding road.

Gladwell makes it apparent in his essay that there are a select number of homeless who rack up massive amounts of health care, compared to the ones who only stay a brief amount of time in a shelter. According to Gladwell, it is these helpless individuals that make the task of ending homelessness a seemingly unachievable one. The unwanted truth is that there will always be those individuals who for whatever reason need to be completely supported by their community. It is our responsibility as members of those communities to take care of every person that is it need, money is a small price to pay for life. With the certainty of some money needing to come out of the taxpayer’s pocket, it now becomes a search for the cheapest most effective means of caring for them. It changes from being merely an economic and political issue to being a question of one’s morals and ethics.

One such program is Value Options. Value Options is the “Regional Behavioral Health Authority for Maricopa County” (Legander). This program strives to end the homeless situation by using the Housing First model. This is a program that believes that “The quicker the person moves into housing, the sooner he will be able to address his behavioral health issues (Legander). It is effective in that it doesn’t just stop at providing housing it also provides programs that help with substance abuse and addresses the mental health problems that many chronically homeless people face. The Value Options program has proven to be a success. Over the past two and a half years, over 365 clients have graduated out of the program. Out of those graduates 90 percent are not back on the streets (Legander). This is very encouraging news for people who want to see the blight of homelessness decreased.

Gladwell briefly mentions traditional care for the homeless with shelters and kitchens in the fact that “they don’t solve the problem” (Million-Dollar Murray). Yet he fails to mention if giving apartments does solve the problem of homelessness. The Denver Housing First Collaborative has found that housing the homeless is in fact beneficial and effective to those who were given the opportunity. It is reported that hospital and emergency costs are down an outstanding 72.95%, “77% of program participants initially housed are still housed in the program, and 15% are employed or seeking employment” and a significant number have increased health (National Health Care for the Homeless Council).
An explanation for the success in which the participants are still living in the apartments is due to the fact that in Colorado these facilities are located in prime neighborhoods for “families requiring access to schools and child care to individuals needing close proximity to trade school and university programs”(Colorado Coalition ). These living conditions are ideal in the hopes that the families will have fewer opportunities to relapse into their old habits because they are constantly surrounded by people who help them and others going through the same situation. The goal of supportive living is not to give anyone a free way out, but to teach them how to become independent and to live on their own.

Another reason for homelessness is driven by low incomes and higher paying job shortages. Homeless individuals find that housing becomes unaffordable when current income does not stay in pace with fiscal responsibilities of owning or renting a home. Contracts, part-time, temporary, or low paying jobs also contribute to common homelessness because of lack of stability regarding when and how much the individual will be paid. It can be assumed that if an individual has a low income or mental disability, finding a suitable apartment or living space may prove quite difficult, and even more so when there is a significant lack in housing. Given this long list of personal problems, it is tempting to dismiss explanations of homelessness that focus on housing market conditions. However, this is one of the primary reasons for homelessness.
A lack of affordable housing, or housing that is affordable to low income households, is commonly given as one of the primary reasons for homelessness. Demolitions, conversions, and upgrading of existing rental housing are attributes of a lack in affordable housing. Currently there is also a growing interest in condominiums rather than apartments creating a substantial shortage in rental units. It is very evident that tighter housing markets are positively associated with higher levels of homelessness.

One of the main issues with homelessness today is that of maintaining a balance between the cost to society and a sense of fairness from the government. It costs more to let homeless people live on the street in a cold, unsanitary climate, than it does to provide housing and counseling for them. Many of the homeless would become more productive citizens if they had access structured programs that effectively push them into a cycle of good work habits and reduce temptations that hinder their recovery.
Although it is arguable that providing food and shelter to the homeless is unfair to taxpayers and a drain on society’s resources, it is much cheaper than letting them hang out on the street under filthy conditions until they need medical attention. By then, cities are legally obligated to provide treatment regardless of cost.
Many programs are available to help the homeless which require that applicants do not drink, do drugs, or are mentally ill, leaving behind the chronically homeless who can never meet this standard. One new radical idea being used by a program called Pathways to Housing believes in the idea of “housing first”, where they give a chronically homeless person a permanent apartment first with no strings attached just to get them off the street, and then provide optional services for people who want the help. Regardless of its emphasis on cost “efficiency over fairness”, this type of care is one of the most affordable options for both the chronically homeless and taxpayers (Gladwell 10).

If a chronically homeless person comes into a hospital three times a week due to drug or alcohol intoxication and we keep on letting that individual come back there actions will never change. To a homeless they see that hospital as a four star hotel with all expenses paid for. In order to fix this problem and save the government billions of dollars we need to come up with a plan. We could start with creating jobs that require minimal skill and offer these jobs to the chronically homeless. If they accept the job we give them a bed in a cheap housing development. Random drug testing would be a requirement. We pay them an honest wage. There hard work would be rewarded with an increase in salary and health benefits. Paying inexpensive rent would be a requirement each month. A program like this would give these homeless a purpose in life, a reason to be sober and wake up for work each morning. It would create the feeling of self-accomplishment and independency. The only problem I see with this idea would be getting the homeless to actually participate in this program. An idea that could motivate the homeless would be setting up a federal law that only allows citizens with a permanent address to receive treatment at public hospitals. The homeless would no longer be able to depend on the government to take care of their medical bills. A program like this would get the chronically homeless off the streets and ideally save the government lots of money.

We are better off spending money in the “Housing First” methodology than by just putting the homeless in warehouse settings. Here’s an example: “The experimental group obtained housing earlier, remained stably housed, and reported higher perceived choice. Participants in the “Housing First” programs were able to obtain and maintain independent housing without compromising psychiatric or substance abuse symptoms.” (Am J Public Health.2004; 94: 651-656).
If we just pony up the money at first to help the homeless get their own apartments in the long run, the government would save money. These homeless would no longer be homeless and they “The Homeless” and we “Ordinary Citizens” would be a better society as a whole. People helping people less fortunate than we are what it should all be about. Just remember Americans, homeless for a lot of people is only a paycheck away. We need to take care of our own, because it can be you that’s in thier position the next time. The homeless are not different from you or I they are just homeless needing a help from above. Also, the cost in the long run with the program “Housing First” is a lot cheaper than just putting the homeless in a warehouse shut away to never think of them again. With the cost of twenty-two thousand a year with “Housing First” for, let’s say ten years, is a lot cheaper than twenty-four thousand a year for the rest of a homeless persons life. In addition the homeless person gets to come home to a place of thier own, one that they are working hard to keep. So that they are not homeless anymore. They can actually be at peace with themselves, and be a productive member of society again.

In the Journal of Primary Prevention there is an Article called Housing First for Long-Term Shelter Dwellers with Psychiatric Disabilities in a Suburban County: A four year Study of Housing Access and Retention. In the article they discuss how providing housing has had a significant effect on helping the chronically homeless get on their feet. This housing program does not require the homeless to go through any sort of sobriety treatment before living in an apartment, However; they do provide a support. In the article they state “The majority of consumers placed by both Housing First Agencies were able to maintain permanent, independent housing.” (Housing First for Long-Term Shelter Dwellers with Psychiatric Disabilities in a Suburban County: A four year Study of Housing Access and Retention,2007).

The homeless people of America need help in many ways, but by starting at the ground point, housing, a person could be well on their way to getting off the streets for good. Many homeless need a substantial amount of help in health care, which is a major tool in helping these people in housing. These homeless people often have mental illnesses, and giving them such a great tool of housing can help them considerably. As doctor Aubry states, “In this country we invest so much in health care that we often think it’s the solution to everything, “Dr Aubry said. “But the best medicine for mental illness is probably housing.”(Picard) There are also many homeless people who are in their situation because of economic issues, and if given somewhere to live will be able to get jobs and get back on their feet without having to worry about how they will afford rent.
Not all homeless people are drug and alcohol abusers. There are many who just cannot afford housing in general, and are completely capable of living a healthy life, but just cannot seem to keep up with expensive housing rates. There are also those who do have mental illnesses such as depression, and with the resource of free housing, would be able to get back on their feet once they found a stable job.

I think Gladwell could have included in his essay more information about homelessness prevention, and, if effective, its probable impact on resource constraints. These chronically homeless individuals cost so much in health care because they are already unhealthy. What if they never got that ill in the first place, or got used to a chronically homeless situation? In his essay he states “Culhane estimates that in New York at least sixty-two million dollars was spent annually to shelter just those twenty-five hundred hard core homeless.”(Gladwell 5) Surely there is a more economical way to shelter these people.
The (Interagency Council on Homelessness) states “The California Department of Mental Health conducted a state wide stody of 4,881 individuals to determine the impact of a housing initiative implemented in 1999 to address the needs of homeless adults with serious mental illness. Pre and Post placement results revealed a 55.8% reduction in hospital inpatient days, a 72.1% reduction in days incarcerated, and a 65% increase in the days of full time employment. The study also documented $27 million in annual savings in hospitalizations, incarcerations, and emergency room visits.”(ICH e-newsletter)Those are pretty impressive figures by any standards. Apparently the housing initiative in this case worked quite well in lowering the cost of said mentally ill individuals on the health care system and law enforcement agenccies.

It is true that many chronically homeless individuals are a huge financial burden on society, but I would have to disagree with your statement that continuing to let them receive care causes them to remain homeless. If we were to refuse service to a sick man who was unable to afford to care for himself it would seem questionable to call ourselves a civilized species. It would send the message that life is less valuable than the almighty dollar. Denying medical care is not how we should approach the homeless epidemic, perhaps we need to change our understanding of the word homeless. It is often though that a homeless person is simply someone who is so lazy that he or she has decided to let themselves live a disgusting lifestyle supported by the state. In most cases, however, they are just people suffering from mental illnesses or are addicted to an extremely addictive substance suck as methamphetamines or heroin.
Your idea for getting the homeless off the streets was to provide them with simple jobs, cheap housing, and random drug testing. On the surface this is a very promising and believable solution to keep the homeless off the streets and in a productive role in society, but if someone is in such a horrible position in life that they are needing to be checked into the hospital numerous time a week, chances are they are beyond becoming productive members of society. Creating easy jobs for these people would be pointless because in reality there are a huge number of jobs available that even a monkey could carry out, so I believe we would be lucky to attract many of the homeless this way. Providing affordable housing along with the job should be a no brainer for most of the homeless, but again we must remember that we are dealing with chronic homelessness which makes the target audience a big challenge to get through to. They have already proven their stubbornness by getting stuck in the position of living on the streets and once someone who is mentally unstable or stubborn finds a comfortable routine it is very difficult to change it. Although drugs and alcohol are a huge issue and main cause in the homeless society, implementing a random drug testing would probably be the demise of your already flawed system. It would most likely force any individual who was open-minded enough to attempt to turn their life around to withdraw from the program. It is very difficult to overcome a serious drug problem and although it would be best to help someone overcome their addiction I think that the first priority would be keeping them safe and off the streets. It is hard to accept that the chronic homeless population might be largely unsolvable, but it is often the truth and I think that the best thing we can do is be there for support when they need it most. As long as they are not causing any damage to other people or their property it is a choice that only they can make, and if they decide they want to change it is something only they can carry out.

@karissa.skogg
The organizations that are helping the homeless with these shelters are doing a great thing and I understand that most people do not stay for long but it shouldn’t be free. They already have free health care to some degree so without that responsibility and free housing, the chronically homeless do not really have a reason to find a home or a job for that matter. If these organizations agreed on an affordable monthly rent, or some type of community service as payment for the apartment, they would be more motivated to find a steady job and keep that job and maybe even get a house on their own.
Nothing is free for anyone else in this world, so why should the chronically homeless be treated any different? With the responsibility of having to pay for a place, it will encourage them to peruse a job and maybe live on their own.

@cameron.kennedy1
Cameron, with our sinking economy in mind, you are absolutely right that our nation needs to find the most cost effective and beneficial way to end this homeless misfortune. Our society cannot continue to afford to pay for these unnecessary expenses of the homeless. If the chronically homeless have the biggest impact on our tax-paying society then they are the ones who need the most help and attention, not the few who only stay for a short amount of time at shelters. How we help these individuals to be successful through their endeavor is the biggest and hardest question, no matter what the cost is, just as you say “money is a small price to pay for life.” If we give the persons who need the most help the opportunity to step out of their rut, they will hopefully give back to our economy by becoming responsible for themselves, which entails obtaining a job and to slowly begin paying for their own expenses. Homelessness is an issue that is not addressed heavily in Montana, but that does not mean that we cannot influence the demanding country for change. I believe that our entire nation needs to think outside the box of traditional homeless shelters and begin thinking in long term and what the most effective treatment is. Like Gladwell believes, ending homelessness completely seems unattainable however; I think we should concentrate more on how to decrease the number of chronically homeless people. Our moral goal should not be solve the problem quickly and have the chance of it to return, but it should be to take the necessary amount of time to stop it for good. Our country has become successful and powerful because of the charity our people give day in and out, and the drive that people have to better our nation in good times and in not so good times. Although no one enjoys paying for a homeless individual’s bills, I believe that we as a community can decrease the number of individuals that need to be completely supported by their community. In order for this to be accomplished we will need to lend a hand when it is needed and understand that in order to get a lower rate of homeless people we might have to make sacrifices of our own. While helping out the homeless we not only make a difference in someone’s life who desperately is in need, but we also help out our regressing economy. In all, your paragraph intrigued me, and left me wanting to read more of your views. However, a question that I was wondering was what your personal outlook was on shrinking the number of chronically homeless? And also, how much money do you think should come out of the tax-payers pockets? It was very clear that you believe we need to help others while thinking about our wallets but more insight on how we should do this would be extremely interesting.