• @sumofchemicalsOP
    link
    11 year 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
      link
      11 year 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.