Homeless

Policies and initiatives for
Long Term Housing
For the Homeless
POLS 301 Prof. Huffman

By: Brandon Cheathon
4/9/2015

Cheathon 1

Homelessness is one of those American societal issues that most people can agree upon,
nobody likes it. This epidemic is not exclusive to one particular region of the country, it is a
widespread problem that every city and state must deal with. Even though most people would
agree that homelessness in America is a sticky subject, community members and government
officials have vastly different perspectives on how to fix the problem. This paper will examine
the problem of homelessness in America, and analyze existing policy solutions. It will first
discuss how homelessness impacts our society and explore the recidivism rate experienced by
those individuals. It will also tie in the consequences of homelessness and how it affects
American taxpayers. At that point, the paper will debate three policy solutions to resolve the
problem of homelessness. After explaining each policy solution, the paper will analyze the
strengths and weaknesses of each solution. Finally this paper will offer personal findings and
observations that were discovered during this process. But before I dive any deeper into this
topic, we must begin by defining our terms. Chronic homelessness is an individual with a
disabling condition who has been homeless for one year or longer.
According to the Department
1
of Housing and Urban Development, a chronically homeless person must be disabled or have
experienced at least four episodes of homelessness within three years. In 2014 there were almost
1.8 million homeless people in America.
Although this statistic is alarming, different cities and
2
states experience much different realities when confronting this issue. Homelessness puts a
financial burden on hospitals, emergency services, law enforcement, courts, the justice system,
and mental care systems. This is why I believe that the federal government should provide free
longterm housing for the homeless.
1
“Homeless Statistics.” DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment.gov. Homeless Statistics,
2014.Web.30 June 2014.
2
Ibid

Cheathon 2

So why is homelessness significant, who does it effect? Many Americans make the
mistake of thinking that if they are not homeless, then homelessness does not affect them. That
ideology is dead wrong. According to HUD, it costs taxpayers forty thousand dollars per year
when you total up the cost of keeping one person homeless without any accommodation.
3
Multiply that by the 1.8 million people who are homeless in America, and you have a whopping
seventy two billion dollar problem. Keep in mind this is an annual cost sustained by tax payers,
local and federal government. One of the key reasons why this problem does not have a
simplistic answer is because there is not a onedimensional reason of why someone becomes
homeless. Besides chronic homelessness there are different levels of this condition. Chronic
homelessness describes someone who is more severely stricken with economic hardships.
However, shortterm homelessness is typically someone who is experiencing homelessness for
the first time.
Usually the hardship they encountered is much more recent like a loss of
4
employment causing rapid financial uncertainty. Different stages of homelessness require unique
solutions that cater to the individual’s needs. To understand more about the landscape of
homelessness, we must look into its demographics.
Out of the 1.8 million homeless people in America, fortyfour percent are single men, and
thirteen percent are single women.
Over thirtysix percent is families with children, and eight
5
percent of the homeless population is U.S. veterans.
These statistics begin to frame the problem,
6
but they do not tell the entire story. If we racially breakdown the same statistics a completely
3
Adams, Stephen. “Homeless in America.” Los Rios Community College District Online
Database. CQ Researcher Online. 1 March. 2013. Web. 4 March. 2015
4
Ibid
5
Ibid
6
2014.Web.30 June 2014.

Cheathon 3

different perspective can be engaged. In America over fifty percent the homeless population is
AfricanAmerican.
White Americans make up the second largest group, comprising thirty five
7
percent of the homeless population.
The third largest group is Hispanics, contributing as twelve
8
percent of the population.
From this data alone many misconceptions, assumptions, fallacies and
9
theories can be made about homelessness. The general public and social structures will be
subject to learning and being informed about these issues by how the media frames them into
news outlets. So when it comes to agreeing upon policy solutions for a problem as inimitable as
homelessness, I understand why there has been a lack of unity. Can Americans gain knowledge
by observing other countries and how they work in partnership with their government policies?
So how does America compare to other countries in the battle of homelessness? In
Europe, an estimated three million people are homeless.
But in Canada only 200,000 people
10
suffer from homelessness.
What are some factors that can cause such a big disparity? For
11
starters Canadian taxpayers provide free long term housing for their homeless population. This
program costs taxpayers on average six billion dollars a year.
This program has not ended
12
homelessness in Canada but it has provided shelter for hundreds of thousands of men, women,
and children. If America experienced similar success from a comparable initiative, that would
save our country close to sixtysix billion dollars per year. Most of the people experiencing
homelessness cannot provide for themselves, so it should be society’s civic duty not to look upon
7
2014.Web.30 June 2014.
8
Ibid
9
Ibid
10
Adams, Stephen. “Homeless in America.” Los Rios Community College District Online
Database. CQ Researcher Online. 1 March. 2013. Web. 4 Nov. 2015
11
Ibid
12
Ibid

Cheathon 4

them as a public stain, but instead with compassion. Homelessness is a very repairable condition
that every city and state must treat with care.
Looking more domestically on a state level, California is home to over twenty percent of
the entire nation’s homeless population.
We by far exceed any other state in this area so it
13
seems only logical to enact new and inventive programs to combat this giant antagonist. To
properly prepare for this battle, we must identify the three main factors that plague the homeless
population. In California alone over fortynine percent of the homeless population suffers from
substance abuse.
Another twentyeight percent suffer from a developmental or physical
14
disability, and twentytwo percent suffer from mental illness.
California is typically revered as
15
an innovator for creative policy. So in 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger proposed his initiative to
End LongTerm Homelessness.
This initiative partnered the state with local government,
16
private entities and nonprofit organizations to create and fund innovative programs to address
these areas. The governor’s initiative had three longterm goals: leverage funds from proposition
fortysix to build new permanent housing units, ensure tenants receive support and proper mental
health care through the Mental Healthcare Service Act, and coordinate state and federal sectors
to collaborate on this effort.
This initial push provided great momentum in the right direction,
17
however this plan was lacking critical details that caused funds not to be allocated for sufficient
longterm housing shelters.
13
“National Alliance to End Homelessness.” NationalAlliancetoEndHomelessness.org. California Homeless Crisis,
2013. Web. 25 May. 2013.
14
"Chronic homelessness 2012 Mental Health Statistics." DHHS.gov. Department of
Health and Human Services
15
Ibid
16
Ibid
17
Ibid

Cheathon 5

The foundation of the governor’s plan required funding from proposition fortysix before
anything could really change. Proposition fortysix raises the question if California should
require random drug testing for their doctors.
I’m not sure where the correlation between drug
18
screening doctors and ending homelessness begins, but there might have been available funds to
borrow from in that area. This is the first weakness of this plan, it relies on external unrelated
funding for its success. If voters are not sure about the complexities of proposition fortysix, it
can create misleading advertisements during its campaign. How will that affect voting and the
success or failure of the governor’s homeless initiative? What if the proposition gets voted
down? Who will carry the burden of funding a statewide housing project? Some of these
questions went unanswered which caused hesitation among supporters. Although this plan raised
many questions and concerns, the level of state and local participation was tremendous.
Hundreds of privately funded local businesses got behind this initiative as well as nonprofit
organizations. This level of cooperation between state and local government and public
businesses shined as a beacon of hope that the state and the people can work together for a
unifying goal. It also proved that the government was willing to manufacture funds to address the
growing concern of homelessness. However, another pitfall of this plan was who it was going to
benefit and who it was going to harm. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
According to this initiative making strides to end homelessness is directly linked to doctors being
taxed more and undergoing new tedious procedures.
Now we have a scenario where a local
19
doctor is against the new act to end homelessness, not because he dislikes homeless people, but
18
“California’s Voter Guide.” Voterguide.sos.ca.gov. Prop 46 pros and cons,
2014. Web. 16 Aug. 2014
19
2014. Web. 16 Aug. 2014

Cheathon 6

because it affects him and his business in a negative way. In order for this initiative to be more
successful it needs to ensure that local businesses will have fewer loiterers and not more hurdles.
The next policy solution that has made tremendous advancements in fighting chronic
homelessness was developed by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. This ten year, state
funded program works with at risk cities that have historically higher rates of homelessness. The
way it works is the NAEH attacks some of the less visible harms of being homeless, such as
illegal camping, by trimming the fat in specific areas.
These displaced individuals still require
20
the same healthcare benefits and judicial treatment as the next person. Unfortunately it is not
always easy to facilitate proper care due to lack of identification and documentation. This marks
the beginning of the shuffling process for the unlucky homeless individual. Without proper
documentation is it nearly impossible to accomplish any legal matters as a citizen in the U.S.
This includes obtaining a driver’s license, getting access to healthcare and treatment facilities.
Due to the lack of healthcare coverage, homeless people who need treatment are left waiting in
the emergency room for assistance. But rarely do these people have the means to pay any
outstanding fines or medical charges. Subsequently, the NAEH is stationed across the country in
communities to provide permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people with
disabilities.
This widespread problem of homelessness directly affects hospitals and
21
emergency services. This consists of the wait time in emergency rooms, and having access to a
physician. Hospitals are backlogged from overcrowding issues, and taxpayers are the ones
paying the price. By doing something as simple as keeping medical records for a homeless
person, the medical experience can be greatly expedited. Another area NAEH wants to help is
20
2013. Web. 25 May. 2013.
21
Ibid

Cheathon 7

law enforcement and our court system.  Police are being distracted from more important issues to
entertain illegal camping misdemeanors and Jwalking offenses. When displaced people have a
permanent place to stay, they are less likely to incur as many misdemeanor infractions. In the
local courts, homeless people are being fined thousands of dollars and being thrown in jail for
being unable to pay their fines.
All of these integral operating structures are being bombarded
22
causing turmoil in our local government agencies.
The NAEH has provided a series of influential successful examples in cities around
America, after chronically homeless people spent just one year in permanent supportive housing.
Since implementing this program, Baltimore, Maryland had a seventyfive percent drop in
emergency room usage.
Saint Paul, Minnesota experienced an eightyfour percent drop in
23
emergency detoxification days.
In Seattle, Washington they saw an eightynine percent drop in
24
hospitalizations related to mental illness.
Most shockingly, Seattle also had a ninetythree
25
percent decrease in arrests and incarcerations.
Lastly, in Connecticut, Medicaid costs were cut
26
by seventy two percent for each treated patient.
The philosophy adopted by the NAEH is one of
27
personal accountability and community support. This microapproach ensures that if everyone
does their respective jobs, then the big picture will take care of itself. That is why this handson
method has proved to be so successful. Each city experiences different areas of growth that are
22
Ibid
23
2013. Web. 25 May. 2013.
24
Green, Avery. “Attack Homelessness.” Los Rios Community College District Online
Database. CQ Researcher Online. 4 May. 2014. Web. 9 Dec. 2014
25
Ibid
26
Ibid
27
Ibid

Cheathon 8

unique from the other areas. But let’s examine if this long term housing saves money up front, or
cost money on the back end.
In Sacramento County, numerous programs currently provide longterm supportive
housing for homeless people with severe mental illness. The Cardosa Cooperative Housing
Program administered by Transitional Living and Community Support Services costs an average
of twentynine dollars per person per day for housing and services.
That works out to be about
28
$10,585 every year.
When you compare that cost to the fortythousand dollars we currently
29
spend as a country on each homeless person annually, you can begin to calculate the benefits.
Other Transitional Living and Community Support programs include the Work Program
of permanent supportive housing for individuals wanting to return to the work force.
The TLCS
30
programs also offer mentally ill and chronic abuser services that help stabilize the individual’s
wellbeing. These allencompassing packages jump out at me as a major benefit to anyone using
this program. This NAEH policy seems to meet the person where they are, and guide them along
the path of success much more closely than other policies. More gaps are being filled and
fundamental assistance is being administered directly to those in need. Using the National
Alliance to End Homelessness policy, thousands of chronically homeless people have gained
proper mental attention and acquired applicable job skills to become contributing members of
society. It has proved as a blueprint for communities around the country to recreate and apply it
to their own situation. Not only do the people who are receiving help reap the benefits, but the
taxpayers, state and federal workers experience the joy too. One downfall to this plan is the cost
28
“Transitional Living and Community Support Services.” TLCS.org. Cordosa Cooperative Housing,
2014. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.
29
Ibid
30
Ibid

Cheathon 9

for the permanent housing typically needs to be paid up front. So without a large investor most of
these programs will never get off the ground floor. Nevertheless, the savings will soon outweigh
the initial investment. Despite all of the success these state level programs are experiencing, the
federal government has not deemed them effective enough to enforce them nationwide.
My third strategy to examine is our nation’s current policy, or the status quo. Currently
there is no federal program that guarantees people in every city free longterm housing. Certain
cities are leading the charge and being proactive in attacking homelessness. Unfortunately if you
do not live in one of those communities, there is a repetitive continuum of this process. First, a
person ends up on the streets looking to find a shelter. But most likely, the shelter is full or only
available for a short period of time. Once their stay at the shelter is up, the lucky individuals get
admitted into a transitional facility. This is where they have a temporary bed number, and access
to limited mental and healthcare attention for three to six months.
While this intermediate
31
option is supplemental, it is only a temporary solution to a long term illness. The last step in this
grim reality is being accepted into a longterm facility. These homes usually stay full because of
the demand for warm beds, so being selected to live here is slim. One problem with accepting the
status quo is the inability to control the recidivism rate of people. Without longterm housing the
recidivism rate of homelessness is about sixtyfive percent.
But when you factor in a longterm
32
housing facility to help the person in need, the recidivism rate drops to under thirtyfive percent.
This proves how vital permanent housing is to reestablishing a person’s life. Another problem
33
with the status quo is relying on temporary and transitional housing. It is like putting a BandAid
31
Singleton, Larry. "Street Occupants and homeless Control." Journal of Economic
Disparity 1.2 (1998): 18125. Web. 5 Mar. 2013.
32
Ibid

33
Ibid

Cheathon 10

on a gunshot wound. The wound is going to get worse if you don’t fix it properly. There are no
shortcuts in repairing millions of people’s livelihoods. I have not found any statistical data that
can show a decrease in homelessness without a strategic plan that influenced it. Homelessness is
not going away on its own. It seems counterintuitive to not have a plan of attack when discussing
this issue.
As I further analyze the data, it appears obvious that sustainable longterm housing is the
most effective way to impact homelessness in America. The good news is state governments are
taking the bull by the horn and proactively addressing this issue. The first policy I examined was
from Governor Schwarzenegger. The initiative had good intentions but it never produced the
results it promised to the people. It also failed to address a specific time frame in which the
success of the program would be measured. The governor’s initiative identified problematic
areas of the status quo, like overspending of tax payer’s dollars, but failed in execution of saving
money. The status quo is clearly unacceptable because it’s leaving the burden on these private
companies and nonprofits to care for the entire homeless population. Turning a blind eye won’t
make the problem go away either. The policy that produced the most results, and made the
biggest impact within the country were the longterm housing facilities. The National Alliance to
End Homelessness has been a catalyst in developing effective solutions to a very complex
problem. Different states and cities all over the country have created some form of permanent
housing to significantly reduce the cost of homelessness. Data from California’s pilot effort to
provide housing for mentally ill patients shows vast improvements in the Sacramento, Yolo and
Stanislaus counties.
This program is a replica of the NAEH’s groundbreaking platform to
34
34
Database. CQ Researcher Online. 4 May. 2014. Web. 9 Apr. 2014

Cheathon 11

improve the lives of others. There was a ninetytwo percent decrease in the number of clients
who were homeless.
These counties incurred a ninetyone percent increase in the number of
35
clients with health insurance.
But the biggest area of growth was a 125 percent increase in the
36
number of clients employed parttime.
The ability to take people off the streets, get them the
37
help they need, and acquire gainful employment is simply amazing. Obviously this plan is not
perfect but it is operational. There is no such thing as a perfect plan, so I favor the most effective
approach. The single statistic I found most shocking was the amount of money American
taxpayers spend to keep someone on the streets every year. If we actively attack this single issue,
we can significantly trim our nation’s deficit. That is why I believe that the federal government
should provide free federal longterm housing for the homeless. It is the best way to ensure
homeless people become contributing citizens and it eliminates a big portion of our country’s
debt.

35
Ibid
36
Ibid
37
Ibid

Cheathon 12

Works Cited
Adams, Stephen. “Homelessness in America.” Los Rios Community College District Online
Database. CQ Researcher Online. 19 March. 2012. Web. 7 March. 2014
<http://0library.cqpress.com.losrios.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre753254
5651> Updated 8 Aug. 2011

2014. Web. 16 Aug. 2014 <Votersguide.sos.ca.gov/prop46>

"Chronic homelessness 2012 Mental Health Statistics." DHHS.gov. Department of
Health and Human Services <http://www.DepartmentofHealthandHumanservices.com>
Database. CQ Researcher Online. 4 May. 2014. Web. 9 Apr. 2014
<http://0library.cqpress.com.losrios.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre850803
2611> Updated 22 Feb. 2012

“Homeless Statistics." HUD.com Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Homeless Statistics. 2014. Web. 30 June. 2014.
<http://www.HUD.gov/Homelessstatistics>.

"National Alliance to End Homelessness." NationalAlliacetoEndHomelessness.org. California

Cheathon 13

Homeless Crisis.
2013. Web. 25 May. 2013. <http://www. NationalAlliacetoEndHomelessness.org/>.

Singleton, Larry. "Street Occupants and Homeless Control." Journal of Economic
Disparity 1.2 (1998): 18125. Web. 5 Mar. 2014. <http://0
www.jstor.org.lasiii.losrios.edu/1658745?seq=1>.

“Transitional Living and Community Support Services.” TLCS.org. Cordosa Cooperative
Housing, 2014. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.
<http://0www.TLCS.org/255684?>

"U.S. Homeless in America." Census.gov. Census Bureau, 2013. Web. 16 Sept. 2013.
<http://www.census.gov/longterm/housing/2012/tables/62c4899.pdf>.

Homeless

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Homeless

Similar to Homeless (11)

Homeless