This paper argues that prevention-based interventions offer a more effective and economically efficient approach to addressing homelessness than reactive sheltering programs. The author examines three primary prevention strategies: raising welfare rates to help people maintain housing, providing addiction treatment services to address substance abuse as a root cause of homelessness, and offering one-time financial assistance to stabilize at-risk populations. By analyzing the cost-benefit analysis of each approach and drawing on evidence about the prevalence of addiction among homeless populations, the paper contends that investing in prevention can reduce homelessness more effectively while consuming fewer resources than ongoing shelter operations.
His large gnarled toes peeked out of far-too-small shoes. His plaid pants hung loosely on his undernourished frame. His lice-infested hair, which once flowed easily in the wind, now hangs matted with dirt and filth. The ripped Pink Floyd t-shirt draped over his shoulders is blood-spattered and covered in vomit and saliva from his hard nights on the street. He sits bearing nothing but the clothes on his back and a small glimmer of hope that may as well have died years ago. This brief description paints an image in our minds of what the homeless look like.
There are many different solutions and approaches to addressing homelessness, but we must also consider the expenses and effectiveness of each plan. Rather than focusing on sheltering the homeless after they have lost their homes, the idea of prevention proves more promising and would be more beneficial in the long run. Methods that can prevent homelessness include raising welfare rates, providing addiction treatment, and offering financial assistance. All these methods will result in fewer people lacking shelter and food.
Living in general is expensive. What happens when someone loses a job, runs out of money, and can no longer pay rent or support their family? They lose their homes and eventually lack food and the safety of the walls that once protected them, yet they face constant difficulties and diseases. Many people have suggested simply helping these individuals pay their rent so they could keep their homes. However, this idea would become prohibitively expensive over time.
Yes, instead of starting over with nothing but the clothes on their backs, people could stay in their homes, keep what they have, and feel secure. Emotionally, this is a sound approach. However, economics plays a critical role here, and most people simply cannot afford to pay their own rent while helping someone else with theirs. The welfare rates are extremely low compared to the cost of living in today's economy. According to recent analysis, "$510 a month—broken down into $325 a month for rent and $185 a month, or $6 a day, for everything else"—is not even enough to maintain shelter and support a family. If welfare rates were raised, it would not only help people but would also be more efficient in cost terms.
The New York Times has reported that "the major role that drug or alcohol abuse plays in causing homelessness has emerged in recent comments by advocates for the homeless, who estimate that addicts constitute a higher proportion of the homeless than do the mentally ill or other identifiable subgroups." This evidence supports the assumption that a significant number of homeless individuals are without housing because of addiction.
Instead of continuously paying money to shelter and support them indefinitely, why not assist them in overcoming their addiction? The cost would be more beneficial, and instead of remaining homeless with an active addiction, individuals would be able to address their substance abuse and live better lives. Most likely, they would recover, gain employment, and secure housing. This approach would result in the number of homeless people decreasing significantly.
"One-time aid improves employment outcomes and housing stability"
If the methods of providing addiction treatment, offering financial assistance, and raising welfare rates were put into motion, the rate of homeless people crowding the streets would decrease. The prevalence of homelessness in the United States is an overwhelming problem, and the idea that so many people have lost their way and are now without homes and food is mind-boggling. If everyone joined in and lent a helping hand to prevent people from becoming homeless, the streets would be cleaner and the world in general would be a better place.
The method of prevention is not the only solution to solving homelessness, as there is an endless list of different possibilities that would make just a small dent in decreasing homelessness in the United States and in the world in general. However, prevention-based approaches offer a practical and cost-effective starting point for addressing this critical social problem.
You’re 84% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.