The real cost of homelessness: Can we do better?

The high cost of homelessness

I came across this site recently.  It makes the case we've been working to make here at CitySquare and across the hall at the Central Dallas Community Development Corporation for some time now.  Take a look at this material.  Once inside, you'll be able to dive as deeply as you'd like.  What follows is a summation of the larger report.  Hint: the graphics alone are well worth the effort to investigate.

This report summarizes what we know about the cost of addressing homelessness by looking at key literature from Canada and the United States. What becomes clear is that the status quo is actually really expensive. It may seem counter intuitive to suggest that it is cheaper and more cost effective to provide people who experience homelessness with the housing and supports they need, rather than simply provide them with emergency supports through shelters and soup kitchens. However, the research reviewed here indicates that this is actually the case. The best social and economic policies should be based on research and evidence, and in this case, the evidence points to the fact that if we do things differently, we not only achieve better social outcomes, but we also save money.

Go to the report here.  

Cut in state mental health funds huge blow to many homeless and to housing efforts. . .

Late last week, we received word from Value Options, the state's private insurance provider for mental health services for the very poor, that cuts in benefits would be forthcoming tomorrow (December 1).

The funding action taken responds to the very disappointing level of support from the state legislature in its last session. 

The Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance believes that adjustments in the latest funding plan need to be forthcoming to protect consumers who are most vulnerable. Among the necessary adjustments, the following should be carefully considered and resolved as quickly as possible:

• The reduction of the case rate for indigent populations to $100 per month from $140 per month will leave many homeless individuals without case management services.

• Homeless individuals with mental illnesses and addictions have few natural supports in place to help them negotiate services systems and ensure their basic needs are met.

• The majority of the 2000 formerly homeless individuals with mental disorders and addictions who now live in supportive housing need the vital case management services now provided.

• It is crucial that a clear case management plan for homeless individuals, those in supportive housing, individuals leaving the jail and those returning from the state hospital be crafted and communicated to the field quickly.

• Note: The estimated cost of serving people with mental illness who are homeless is three time higher than for consumers who are in stable housing because of the increased incidence of crisis and subsequent rates of emergency room visits, hospitalizations and incarcerations among those who have no homes of their own.

• Homeless Individuals, including parents in families who are homeless, should be considered a priority population and services should remain whole for these populations.

Again, the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable among us take the hit in the public policy decisions of the State of Texas.   We must find a way to do things differently and more effectively.

Deep cuts in food programs harmful, unnecessary

Our ongoing national budget crisis jeopardizes the health, nutrition and overall well-being of the poorest and weakest Americans.  As Congress considers, debates and proposes various plans to slash spending, it appears that more and more life-sustaining options will be taken from the poor. 

Furthermore, a common notion (read just here "myth") is that private non-profits, churches and other NGOs will be able to "pick up the slack" or close the gap in providing needed benefits and services.  Of course, anyone who works in the sector and understands the magnitude of the problems facing poor folks also knows that such a suggestion is simply not feasible.  While non-profit groups have a role to play, often in administering public funds via grants and/or contracts, they can't be expected to manage the problems created by massive cutbacks.  The scale of the need and the challenges facing our low-income neighbors are simply too large to effectively address without adequate, realistic public funding.  

A factor few people bent on budget cuts often overlook is the high return on investment achieved by the strategic use of public benefits to help lift people from poverty.  Each dollar spent to help improve the lives of low-income persons and families is immediately injected into our economy.  Poor people don't leave their funds unspent on any sideline! 

In addition, effective programs for the poor prevent costly problems down the road.  For example, funds invested in infant and childhood nutrition reduce health care costs later in life among this population.  

As the following report makes clear, our times call for thoughtful leaders, not knee jerk reactions.  These tough times for so many also call for fairness and equity in policy matters.  Let me know what you think after you've read the report. 

Bait and Switch


Congress Chooses One Week’s Worth of Tax Cuts for Millionaires over Nutrition Assistance for Families that Need It

By Melissa Boteach, Seth Hanlon
June 2, 2011

If House Republicans get their way in the federal budget for fiscal year 2012 beginning in October, nearly 500,000 women, infants, and children could be deprived of basic nutritional assistance. Though Republican leaders justify this decision on the grounds that budget deficits require "shared sacrifice," the tax cuts they recently fought to extend will give away more money to America’s 300,000 millionaires this week than it will cost to adequately fund nutrition programs for all of next year.

That’s the story and the math behind the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee decision to slash the budget for the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, by $833 million in FY 2012. WIC provides nutritious foods to low-income pregnant women, new moms, babies, and children under 5 who have been identified as nutritionally at risk. The program has done this successfully for nearly 40 years at a relatively modest cost to the federal government, which is why the program has traditionally enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

The bill approved this week by Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee upends that bipartisan commitment, imposing deep and harmful cuts to WIC and denying assistance to 325,000 to 475,000 eligible mothers, infants, and children. In fact, not content with cutting WIC, the House Republicans also placed on the chopping block the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which delivers nutritionally appropriate meals to low-income, often homebound seniors. Tens of thousands of vulnerable seniors would lose access to these meals if these cuts totaling $38 million are ultimately signed into law.

Conservatives often claim that private charities and faith-based organizations will simply pick up the slack. Yet the funding bill for agriculture and nutrition programs also slashes the very funding that supports emergency food bank networks, through both food commodities and storage and distribution. The bill cuts $63 million from The Emergency Food Assistance Program, a decision that would significantly impede the ability of private food banks, shelters, and pantries to meet the rising need.

All told, the bill cuts $934 million out of these three federal nutrition programs. House Republicans say that given our nation’s fiscal challenges, these draconian cuts are unavoidable. Indeed, when announcing the cuts to nutrition services, Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston patted himself on the back for “making some of the tough choices necessary to right the ship.”

But slashing federal nutrition assistance won’t right the ship. It would steer us in the wrong direction. The WIC program represents about two-tenths of 1 percent of the federal budget. Even if one disregards the negative consequences on family budgets and the overall economy, the proposed cuts would reduce this year’s federal deficit by less than one-tenth of a percent.

In all likelihood, these cuts would leave the country and the federal budget in worse shape. Investing in the nutrition of pregnant women, infants, and young children is often credited with saving federal dollars in the short term and long run. By ensuring vulnerable children have access to adequate nutrition, WIC often prevents more costly health problems down the line and improves children’s school performance. According to researchers at Children’s HealthWatch, children’s brain size more than doubles in their first year of life when they are provided with appropriate nutrition. By ensuring moms and new babies have the nutritional supports they need to thrive during this critical time, WIC decreases the risk of developmental delays and promotes school readiness.

The program’s biggest cost-savings, however, often come before the child has even turned 1 year old. Economists estimate that every $1 invested in WIC saves between $1.77 and $3.13 in health care costs in the first 60 days after an infant’s birth by reducing the instance of low-birth-weight babies and improving child immunization rates. In fact, it is estimated that the program has saved more than 200,000 babies from dying at birth.

Read the entire report here.

Differences to face

Two Major Differences Between America And The Rest Of The Developed World

Gus Lubin
Business Insider
Apr. 13, 2011, 11:21 AM

The OECD released a massive pack of data on the developed world this week. America performs well on things like household income and tolerance; and badly on things like health and voting rates.

But there are two measures where the U.S. is far and away the worst.

First, the U.S. prison population is 760 prisoners in 100,000. The next closest country is South Africa at 329 prisoners, while the OECD average is 140 prisoners.

Second, U.S. health spending is 16 percent of GDP. The next closest country is France at 11.2 percent of GDP, while the OECD average is 9.0 percent.

This means that Americans cost more to take care of -- even while their benefits are worse.

Social spending is low on pensions, but high on prisons. Health spending is off the charts, but obesity and life expectancy are worse than average.

Read more.

Prison costs and judicial wisdom

This article appeared in The New York Times on September 18, 2010.  Another result of the recession. 

Working with men, women and youth here in inner city Dallas has taught me that for many offenses prison is not the best solution.  As a matter of fact, prison, at least the way we do it in Texas, often makes things worse for everyone.  And, it cost us all an arm and a leg and one life after another harvested out of already weakened communities.  I'm not talking about violent crimes here or sexual crimes.  For the most part, I am talking about how we handle addicts and users. 

Read the article and consider the "cost benefit" analysis that seems to be at work in the concept.  Then, tell me what you think.

Missouri Tells Judges Cost of Sentences


By MONICA DAVEY
Published: September 18, 2010

ST. LOUIS — When judges here sentence convicted criminals, a new and unusual variable is available for them to consider: what a given punishment will cost the State of Missouri.

For someone convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, for instance, a judge might now learn that a three-year prison sentence would run more than $37,000 while probation would cost $6,770. A second-degree robber, a judge could be told, would carry a price tag of less than $9,000 for five years of intensive probation, but more than $50,000 for a comparable prison sentence and parole afterward. The bill for a murderer’s 30-year prison term: $504,690.

Legal experts say no other state systematically provides such information to judges, a practice put into effect here last month by the state’s sentencing advisory commission, an appointed board that offers guidance on criminal sentencing.

The practice has touched off a sharp debate. It has been lauded nationally by a disparate group of defense lawyers and fiscal conservatives, who consider it an overdue tool that will force judges to ponder alternatives to prison more seriously.

But critics — prosecutors especially — dismiss the idea as unseemly. They say that the cost of punishment is an irrelevant consideration when deciding a criminal’s fate and that there is a risk of overlooking the larger social costs of crime.

“Justice isn’t subject to a mathematical formula,” said Robert P. McCulloch, the prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County.

The intent behind the cost estimates, he said, is transparent: to pressure judges, in the face of big bills, into sending fewer people to prison.

To read the entire story click here.