• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    In 2023, HSOC teams approached and engaged with 2,344 unsheltered people living on the streets. Of those 2,344 people, 1,065 accepted shelter services. Fifty-four percent of people experiencing homelessness — or 1,278 people — declined offers for shelter.

    Housing is exponentially more expensive than shelter. Sure, in an ideal world, housing should come first, but we don’t live in that world. We live in a world of budget constraints. We need to practice harm reduction.

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Some others here have highlighted that “shelter services” is not the same thing as an actual shelter. People can’t stay as long as they want, they don’t have a secure place to store their belongings, and they can be dangerous. Here is a post with sources that outlines why permanent supportive housing is more cost effective than temporary overnight shelters

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, overall. But the cost of someone living partially or fully on the streets is spread between public and private. The cost to the State is typically less.

        I can’t follow the links to any of the sources in that post, btw.

        • sumofchemicals@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, not sure what’s up with that. Here are the working links as best I can tell:

          • A recent HUD study found that the cost of providing emergency shelter to families is generally as much or more than the cost of placing them in transitional or permanent housing”
          • “All the residents at this Housing First styled residence…”
          • “A cost study of rural homelessness from Portland ME found significant cost reductions when providing permanent supportive housing as opposed to serving the people while they remain homeless”
          • “A study from Los Angeles CA… found that placing four chronically homeless people into permanent supportive housing saved the city more than $80,000 per year”

          Lastly this link did seem to work but I thought the statistics and the FAQ were helpful.–

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Sorry, finally got around to reading your links. I can’t find the LA study, but the Portland comparison is a bit of an outlier compared to the homeless problem in most cities. The cost of acquiring housing in large cities is much larger.

            Most of the studies seem to compare the cost before and after placing people in permanent housing, but not factoring in the cost of the housing itself. And they speak about the benefits to individuals placed in housing, not the society wide impacts. If we could vastly improve the life of one person a year at the expense of all other homeless people, that’s a terrible bargain.

            Shelters are not a cure-all, they’re harm reduction. And I still suspect they’re massively cheaper (in cost per number of people helped) than procuring housing for everyone.