A Bit of Cash Can Keep Someone Off the Streets For 2 Years or More (sciencemag.org)

An anonymous reader writes: If someone is about to become homeless, giving them a single cash infusion, averaging about $1000, may be enough to keep them off the streets for at least 2 years. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that programs that proactively assist those in need don't just help the victims -- they may benefit society as a whole. "I think this is a really important study, and it's really well done," says Beth Shinn, a community psychologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who specializes in homelessness but was not involved in the work. Homelessness isn't just bad for its sufferers -- it shortens life span and hurts kids in school -- it's a burden on everyone else. Previous studies have concluded that a single period of homelessness can cost taxpayers $20,000 or more, in the form of welfare, policing, health care, maintaining homeless shelters, and other expenses. To combat homelessness, philanthropic organizations have either tried to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place or help them regain housing after they are already destitute. But there aren't many data on whether giving cash to people on the brink of becoming homeless actually prevents them from living on the street.

Comments

I believe it

[Prien715]

There was a chapter in SuperFreakonomics about the cost of homelessness to society via emergency services and law enforcement and how free housing is a cost-effective solution. It's good to see another example of their hypothesis that simply providing free services to the homeless is cheaper than the status quo.

People against this idea who say "I'm a small government conservative and I don't believe in giving people free stuff" miss the point entirely; this saves money and reduces the size of government in turn. Anyone who has moral problem with saving money by helping people is likely an Ayn Rand fan or an asshole, but probably both;)

Re:I believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

It can cost between 20K and 60K to put someone in prison.

Thats per inmate, per year.

I wonder how much money you could save by doing this:

"This is your first offence. We'll pay you half of what it costs to keep you in prison so you can feed yourself, pay rent, look for work or keep your job. You also have to wear this GPS ankle bracelet and check in with us every few weeks to prove you're not a fuck-up. Also you need to get a job if you're able. Otherwise you're going to prison."

Re:I believe it

[PatientZero]

We offered food to someone who said they NEEDED money for food. They rejected the kindness with cursing.

We've all read that anecdote before. I once offered a friend a bite of my sandwich because it was really good, but he said he didn't like turkey. I learned my lesson, and now I never offer to let my friends taste my food. Problem solved!

Or maybe we should find what works for a range of situations and apply the solution that fits best in that moment? Instead of handing out bags of cash, perhaps start with an interview with a social worker trained for this, and directly pay their rent/mortgage/car/bills. Work with local grocery stores to buy groceries. It ain't rocket science.

Giving a place to stay for the homeless, yes, that is much safer.

The point is to help people avoid becoming homeless in the first place--and save money to boot.

Re:Very Basic Income

[AK Marc]

Money for nothing teaches people to slack.

Lack of opportunity teaches people to slack. Money is irrelevant to whether people slack. That you object to helping people doesn't mean you have to lie about it too.

Re:Very Basic Income

[AK Marc]

Drop all other welfare, and run the numbers again. It'd be a spending cut. Not an increase. And if a welfare state is as bad as the Republicans say, we can eliminate the massive military spending, because nobody would want to invade. Net savings, and increased benefits.

Australian Observer

[labnet]

American Culture seems to be strongly influenced by 'every man for himself'; or more subtly, your destiny is made by you and the effort you put into life. If you happen to be lazy, then suffer you.

I think there are three levels of maturity in a people and society:
1- Dependency (Child Stage)
2- Independence (Late Teen Stage). ie I can do it without anyone's help
3- Interdependence (Mature Stage) we all need to work together.

The USA seems to have gotten stuck between 2 & 3, while Europe/Canada/Australia went on to stage 3.
ie, We have strong social support systems such as good basic free medical care, good basic social security services, humane prisons with some attempt to reform.
While I as a tax payer don't like supporting lazy people, I think it is the lesser of two evils. ie having destitute people resort to crime with all the associated costs.
So I think the article is right, but culturally I don't see the USA ever changing within my lifetime.

Re:A Tale of Two Types

[AK Marc]

So what? The studies on the "drug test those on welfare" have shown that the tests cost more than the benefits received by those who tested positive. If you want financial responsibility, you should pay out the drug users. But we don't want "responsibility", we want punitive games. Punish people we don't like, even if the cost of the punishment is much greater than the problem caused. Most welfare recipients are white, but people think of the "average" welfare recipient as a Black person. Why? Studies have shown that if you show the plight of poor whites, then ask about welfare, people are more willing to increase welfare, than if you ask without that background, or show Blacks on welfare.

It's more a racial issue than a financial one.

Re: Very Basic Income

[Ichijo]

Because road wear is a function of the fourth power of the weight, the fees should be:

A 540-pound motorcycle pays $0.0013/mile
A 3,470-pound SUV pays $0.347/mile
An 80,000 pound semi trailer pays $4,252/mile

Re:Very Basic Income

[BarbaraHudson]

1. You're taking money away from people who earned it and giving to to people who didn't

As opposed to what? As fewer jobs become available, the alternatives are give a portion of it or have it all taken by force. Do you really want history to repeat itself?

2. What happens to people on basic income who have too many kids? Just keep paying them even more?

Most of the western world in the northern hemisphere is already below zero population growth. Countries have already experimented with paying people to pop out more kids, it doesn't work because people know that extra children are a financial burden in uncertain economic times. Basic income would not be high enough to offset that.

3. We already have enough illegals and freeloaders as it is. Paying half the country to do nothing will only make more of them.

Be happy that those illegals are doing jobs that you wouldn't do, like agricultural work. Do you really want to pay $5 for a tomato, because that's the alternative.

And what about all those seniors, who are "freeloading" because they aren't working. Japan already has 26% of their population over 65. Throw in those too young to work, and the infirm, and the unemployed, and that's pretty much half the population already. (total population 127 million, employed 64 million).

And the US is already worse. Only 151.5 million people work out of a total population of 319 million.

Re:Very Basic Income

[Kiuas]

The government now becomes the provider, rather than the individual

Yes, but that's the whole point of it. The reason something like the UBI will be needed by every country sooner or later is that in the foreseeable future the demand for low skill human labor will drop very close to zero as most menial jobs and quite many more complex jobs can be automated.

When we remove the incentive to work, we reduce production.

No, not always. As explained above, we're headed toa future were most simple jobs are done by machines. This means these things are still produced, they're just not produced by human workers.

More importantly, the satisfaction of working disappears. Is work not respectable? Do people not get a sense of achievement when they can be self-reliant? Isn't that what all liberals claim to be for? Freedom and individualism? How can one be for those and also for basic income?

Very simply: because we recognize that having everyone be fully employed in the future is an impossibility, one's freedom to live should not be defined by work. This doesn't mean work is not respectable, and many people will probably be working part time still, and contribute to a number of things via which they can get their sense of achievement.

UBI makes upward mobility difficult by making the reward of getting a job less. How can we expect someone to climb up the ladder if the first three steps are less attractive than not getting on it?

But again, since there will be massses of people for whom work simply does not exist in the coming decades, UBI is a necessity. It's not like these people can somehow all be compelled to work when the demand of human labor required will be far below the amount of people on the planet. 'Climbing up the ladder' is not something that everyone CAN do, so those people must be provided for and UBI-like systems look like the most sensible way to achieve this.

The people who have the intellectual capabilities to educate themselves for a job they can actually do will still be motivated, because most people want a better/higher standard of living. We have quite extensive unemployment benefits here in Finland, yet people still look for work instead of just living on the benefits, because even though the difference between a low wage job and being on the benefits might not be more than a few hundred euros that few hundred euros more in disposable income is a significant improvement in one's standard of living.

Throwing money at the issue isn't going to fix it. We must make a path out of poverty, not make it more comfortable.

Throwing money at the poor doesn't make them less poor?

Overall, it seems to me that a great deal of people who oppose the idea of UBI do not understand the economic realities especially western post-industrialized economies are facing in the very near future. The whole concept of employment will change drastically as less and less humans are needed for companies and services to operate. This means we have to change our ideas about the role of work in everyday life, because the technological advances that are rushing us towards this age are already happening and they cannot be stopped.

Our economies have adapted to similar major shifts before: the cessation of slave labor, the industrial revolution, etc. and we'll adapt again, and the history will likely look back at the guys who thought UBI was the end of the world as akin to those who said the ending of slavery would cause major economic meltdowns.