I feel I should begin today's post with a disclaimer: I am leery of studies that examine the costs of homelessness without also looking at effectiveness. Last week, HUD published one such study, titled Costs Associated with First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals. The study, conducted by Abt Associates, Inc., looks at the average costs per month for emergency shelters, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing for the first-time homeless in six U.S. communities. Here is what they found:
- The emergency shelter system may be an 'adequate' response to an immediate crisis for individuals, but it is an expensive solution for families. Shelters for families tend to offer private rooms, be open 24 hours a day, and provide supportive services which increase the costs.
- For individuals, overnight emergency shelter has the lowest cost per day (and provides the fewest services and often limited hours).
- In almost all cases, the costs associated with providing housing for individuals and families who are homeless within a program exceeds the Fair Market Rent cost of providing rental assistance without supportive services.
One of the conclusions from this study is that communities should avoid extensive use of high-cost homeless programs (i.e. transitional housing) for individuals and families who primarily need permanent housing without supports or whose needs can be met outside of homeless programs. I'd be interested in hearing from direct service providers. My guess is that families and individuals living in 'high cost programs' are there because they need the services. And, in the absence of site-based services, these same people may not seek help.
Many people support a consumer-choice model for homeless services. This may work for homeless individuals, but for a homeless family with young children and chemically-dependent head-of-household, who is making the choice? The problem with this study is that it is looking at costs without considering the outcomes. Especially for homeless children.
Your disclaimer is spot on and the questions you ask in this article are the right ones.
ReplyDeleteI remember a call I once got from my sister who was trying to help a victim of domestic violence find an emergency shelter. All the shelters were full; so they spent the night driving around until a daytime drop-in center was available.
Much of HUDs research these days disparages emergency shelter and transitional housing. But when you are in crisis, you need a shelter ... right now. To not be building / maintaining our existing shelter system is wrong. Also, some communities have no shelter. Every community needs someplace that people in crisis can go.
Transitional housing also gets a bad rap these days. That's unfortunate. Some people need short-term help getting their back in order ... fleeing violence, job loss, health care crisis. The problem, I think, arises when you try to provide transitional supports to someone who needs permanent supportive housing. You need both forms of help; because people have different needs. Or another problem arises when someone gets the help of transitional housing, but there is no affordable housing for someone to transition into. That's not a failure of transitional housing. It's a failure of our affordable housing market.
Thanks for your comments and insight. I get the feeling that this research was intended to highlight how expensive shelters and transitional housing are to set the stage for a (continued?) policy shift away from site-based housing programs. As you point out, we need a continuum of options to meet varying needs. I've interviewed many low-income families who became homeless after a life crisis (divorce, domestic violence, chem dept. A common pattern for these families is a short-term shelter stay, followed by transitional housing, and then to their own affordable unit where they experienced a long period of housing stability. It's a pattern that helps many families receive the support they need to achieve housing stability.
ReplyDelete