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

Very Basic Income

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd favor a basic income. A very basic income. Something like the following.

For citizens and permanent residents (Green Card holders).
$500/month 21+ years old
$250/month for 21 and younger
Add $200/month/person if we get rid of S.N.A.P.

Increase progressive income taxes. Institute a 10% Universal Basic Income tax on AGI on citizens and permanent residents.

Not an addition to social security payments. More like an "expanded social security", except this is below the special minimum or wharever it is called.
I estimate it would cost $1.2 trillion to do the idea above.

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.

Re:Very Basic Income

[Tesen]

I am a green card holder and have been living here for almost 17 years, I pay same taxes as you, I pay in to SSI and I contribute a hell of a lot of money to the economy. I should just suck it up and naturalize, it is not like I cannot keep my current citizenship in addition to obtaining US. The difference between citizenship and permanent residence is that you have taxation with representation, I however do not, but it is within my power to resolve that.

Tes

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. In the US, they bid on roads that are already speced. USDOT, the state DOT or local municipality write specs on what they want people to bid on. They then bid on them and build the road. There may be some issues with crap work, but 99% of the time it's the people who spec the road are trying to cut corners and save money on the project. Short-term thinking vs. long-term thinking.

In Germany, they spec the roads to last 25 years. They have a higher quality requirement of the raw materials and they build the road to outpace the expected traffic weight. They are also have very strict limits for weight restrictions, which are much less than the roads are built for.

In Michigan, they spec the roads for the 80% of expected weight. Up to 20% of the trucks on the road are expected to exceed what the road is built for. The specs are also based on a 10 year lifespan, of which they may only get 5 years. We use less concrete, have thinner underpavement, and lower quality standards for the raw materials. Consequently, it costs ~50% less to build a road in Michigan than it does in Germany, even if account for labor being more expensive there.

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.

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:I believe it

[ajlisows]

Because i'm a little bit insane myself, I've taken in four homeless people in the last three years. I give them a place to stay and make sure they are fed. In exchange they clean up around the house and help me prepare meals. I also give them each a (barely functioning) laptop of their own so they could look for jobs. One oft hem took quickly to repairing computers and did side jobs (Mostly virus cleanup/backup and wipe type stuff. It took 4 to 7 months for the first three to get on their feet and get a job and get their own place. Not everyone has friends and family that have it within their means to help them out.....the people i took in came from poor families. I took in women and the common thread was that they did have places to stay....at the cost of being taken advantage of sexually. It is amazing how much easier it is to get your shit together when you don't have to worry about finding your next meal. It's amazing how much fewer drugs you need to abuse to get yourself to sleep on a futon in a warm house than on cold rock under a bridge. its' amazing how much trust, friendship, and loyalty (and an occasional bit of advice.....where to get help for depression....how to make a resume) mean just as much as financial help. My latest one took a bit longer....it's been 9 months and she is working part time and got enough some financial aid/grants to get into school. Shes' going to stay here a few more months and pay me a very modest rent. Her goali s to get her own place by the end of the year. They have turned out to be good, well adjusted people i am proud to call my friends. It cost me some money (and some sleepless nights), but damn it feels good to truly help someone out and see the results. i think my days of altruism to this extreme are over for awhile though!

A very "someone"

[raymorris]

The study showed something much more specific than the summary mentions, and sometimes the opposite of what the headlines indicates.

Quoting the article, good outcomes were likely when :
--
giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income
--

Not so effective, the study found, was giving cash to people carelessly. If someone was broke last year, and the year before, and they were broke last month, they'll probably be broke again next month.

Personal experience helping ex-cons, alcoholics, and drug addicts is that *most* people will continue doing what they've been doing, and continue getting the same results. The trick is to find the ~5% who are doing something different, so they'll get different results, and help them.

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:A very "someone"

[Enigma2175]

RE: "giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income."

Well that's quite a different scenario! And that makes sense. As usual, the article did not mention that.

Seems like almost every "news" source these days tells only half the truth.

It's literally a quote FROM THE FUCKING ARTICLE, and the post you replied to specifically said it was from the article. You didn't read the article or the post (or at least didn't comprehend them) then you bitch about the media not keeping you informed. If you want to see who is keeping you uninformed, look in a mirror.