Jun 24
The Impact of Improved Shelter for the Homeless
To help me in my search for inspiration, Stacy recommended I write something on this story that talks about improved portable shelters for the homeless. It is hard to be against something that raises the standard of living of anyone, especially those at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. I would like to take a fairly objective view on this subject, the well being of the homeless living in the streets, and look at the economic and social impacts of something like free, comfortably designed portable shelters.
Healthcare for the homeless
Probably one of the most positive aspects of having free, high quality shelter for the homeless are the health benefits of staying dry and warm. Not only does staying well improve the standard of living for the homeless, but it also decreases a huge social and economic burden from cities who have to treat the uninsured homeless population. With fewer uninsured people getting sick, this will not only decrease the cost of healthcare for those that can and do pay for it, but it will lighten the already overfilled load of patients that hospital emergency rooms have to take care of. The healthcare aspect is a win-win for the homeless population and the surrounding society.
An increasing homeless population
This will be a hard point for many people to agree with, but as the lifestyle of the homeless becomes better, the homeless population will increase. I am not saying more people will choose to be homeless. Nobody really ever willingly makes that choice. What will happen, though, as the standard of living increases, is that less people will make the choice to stop being homeless. If the main motivation for people to look for work and get out of their rut is a terrible lifestyle, having comfortable, attractive, and portable shelter will not provide as much of this motivation. This is a hard concept to swallow, that certain homeless people will not move into a more productive lifestyle if they are given suitable shelter, but I believe it to be 100% true. My following points will rely on this fact, so if you cannot agree with this, then you probably will not agree with the rest of my post either.
An increase in the homeless population is an increase in crime
Because of the deprived lifestyle many homeless people lead, there is a natural increase in crime rates where there is high homeless population density. This is not to say that all homeless people are criminals, just that there are enough that are desparate enough within the homeless communities to raise crime rates. This increase in crime not only costs cities more for policing the crimes committed, but increased crime rates lower property values, decreases the social welfare of the surrounding population, and attracts additional negative externalities such as drugs and prostitution.
Unavoidable publicity
With an increase in the homeless population and larger, brighter portable shelters being used, the homeless will be impossible to ignore. This can have 2 different effects, and I haven’t yet decided whether this will have a net positive or negative. First the positive: the more the homeless population stands out, the more people will be aware of and want to fix the problem. Philanthropy will increase out of pity, concern, and also out of selfishness. The selfishness stems from the negativity surrounding the homeless population. Nobody wants to see their streets filled with homeless people for many reasons, and this increased publicity from the homeless will make it that much worse. With the homeless population standing out more, this could drive down housing prices and social welfare even further than the current homeless population does.
There are a number of other externalities that increase the social and economic costs associated with a well-kept homeless population, but I think these cover the main points I have been thinking about. The positives related to improved portable shelters for the homeless are extremely positive: an increased standard of living, lower healthcare costs for society as a whole, and cleaner looking streets. At what cost do these come, though? It is never easy to put a pricetag on happiness, but there will always be economic elements that are taken into consideration. In the end, without hard numbers, it is a hard call to make. The well-being of the homeless increases substantially, but the economic costs of an increased homeless population are also significant.
What do you think? Does it matter that there will be more homeless if they are better taken care of? Will the benefits outweigh the costs? There is a lot to think about here, and I think we can have a good discussion about this in the comments. I’m sure there is a ton I haven’t thought about, so leave your opinions below.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think there’s perhaps a lot of other side-effects you’re ignoring when you expect that homelessness will increase as a result of better living conditions. I think there are probably two types of homeless people– those that have been forced into such a situation for one reason or another, and those that lack the motivation to put themselves into any other sort of situation. I’m sure there’s some overlap there, but I think these are generally the two cases.
For those that lack the motivation to raise themselves up in society–the drunks, the delusional, and otherwise– will certainly appreciate this new living standard. Although, the original article makes it sound like even these portable homes will require some responsibility and upkeep– it’s hard to say whether this demographic is even ready for it.
The other group are those that have been forced into homelessness, by layoffs, family troubles, and perhaps some war veterans. I think these represent the threshold– they could better their situation, or stay homeless. You predict that a better homeless quality of life will keep them there. However, I would presume that their new homes will give them more opportunity to find their way into society. With a dependable roof over their heads, they will have less health problems, as you have mentioned, and more opportunity to find their place in society. They can get a real night’s sleep, and perhaps even work towards getting a steady job. I think the better housing will introduce opportunity which wasn’t previously available.
June 25th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Kyle, you didn’t mention where these shelters were being introduced. Are US cities doing this already? I wonder who will manage the new system: the distibution of the shelters, the safe-keeping, the cost, and the storage. Will the parks be full of red tents 24/7, or will they be stored away, out of sight, during the day? What if Homeless Harry wants to take a nap midday, can he go retrieve his tent from the storage area? Can he store his belongings with the tent all day rather than carry them around?
If I got a pretty new red tent, I’d want to personalize it a little bit–maybe a potted plant at the doorway or even a festive flag to identify my new digs. I wonder if sharing would be allowed, and the melody of sounds you might hear on your stroll through the park. Will the police patrol with their flashlights, peering in to check for criminal acitivity, or will the tents be private like our homes, requiring an invitation before entering? So many questions.
Although this may be a good system, and an improvement to society, it will come with new costs.
So, tell me, is this is real proposal or did you just want to get me fired up this morning?
June 25th, 2008 at 7:18 am
All good questions there Cheryl, and I don’t think there really are any answers at this point. This was just a design put together by a group called ZO_loft as a concept. As far as I can tell there is no plan for actual implementation at this point, though if enough people rallied behind the idea I’m sure it would pop up somewhere like San Francisco.
As far as tent cities taking over the public parks, I don’t think that will be an issue. Just as you and I aren’t permitted to set up a “home” in the middle of central park, neither will the homeless. Even today they are generally pushed out of many public parks if they seem to be setting up any type of camp.
Scott, I’ll concede that I didn’t take into account all externalities when making my claim, there is just too much to analyze without having an actual example to look at. You do have a good point though, that adequate housing may help many of those that would not have had the chance to even look for work. My personal experience with the homeless back in San Luis was that many of the people there seemed completely capable of working, but the reason they never looked for work was because they were more than comfortable not working. It was a lifestyle choice to stay where they were there once they became homeless, because homeless life in San Luis was a lot cushier than it is in most places. Introduce improved shelter for the homeless across the US and you may get a similar effect to what I saw in San Luis Obispo.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I’m not sure if San Luis can really be taken as an accurate representation of the homeless US– just about every other major city has things like weather. So, for those that choose homelessness as a lifestyle, then this will be an improvement. But I don’t think a high percentage of homeless prefer their situation.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The reason I used San Luis as an example was because it was a comfortable place to be homeless. I don’t think better shelter would have much effect there, but that if you turn other parts of America that were formerly NOT comfortable places to live into something more appealing, you may get the same results that San Luis had. I hate thinking that a happy homeless population is a bad homeless population, but do you really want people being content with their homelessness?
June 25th, 2008 at 9:59 am
This is true– why give perks condoning that kind of lifestyle. Mostly out of humanity, the same reason soup kitchens and such are set up. It’s just a question of where to draw the line.
Another interesting point that was mentioned just briefly in the original article is that the portable homes could be sponsored. There would be a commercial logo or ad on the large disk which the homeless person would roll around and display through the city. I wonder if such a thing would catch on. Is it really desirable to have homeless people representing you? What sort of companies would buy into it? How much would they invest for such an advertisement?
June 25th, 2008 at 11:00 am
The advertising thing is a neat concept, but I think it would ultimately fail. Although many companies may feel philanthropic by placing their ads on these tents, and they probably would be perceived by the public this way, I think the homeless population would have a negative reaction to it.
The homeless are traditionally anti-corporation, anti-establishment, etc. because they feel that the larger entities that run our country are what put them in the tough spot that they are in. I have a feeling the logos would quickly be defaced and degraded by the owners of the tents, which would ultimately force the advertisers to pull their money from the project. If their logo isn’t even recognizable, they are not gaining any brand equity through their efforts. The advertising to support this kind of initiative sounds great on paper, but I can’t imagine it working very well in practice.