A little over a year ago, I moved returned to Canada (Toronto) after five years in the UK. One of the most striking things I noticed was the difference in homelessness between here and there.
A homeless man who they had to repeatedly pick up off the street because he kept drinking himself into a stupor and falling down. (Hospital bills, etc..)
Apparently he cost the state 1 Million Dollars over 10 years.
So $20,000 per year $100,000/per year? Suddenly that low end guarantee is a serious cost savings.
Now certainly - "Murray" wouldn't get away with costing ONLY $20,000 per year ... but in a safe, (partially) supervised area, he'd have cost a lot less than $100k.
Gladwell also mentions that the data shows "most people" won't leech off these programs forever. Most have an innate drive to want to improve themselves.
Some will but actually - it's probably still cheaper than "Murray".
I am 100% in favor of a program like this - in principle.
Now try and introduce it at a Texas town hall meeting :) With FOXNEWS cameras in attendance.
Coming from belgium I have seen big differences with homelessness in Canada. Not only are there more homeless in Canada but their composition is different too.
There are more women and young people on the street. The ratio of whites(and presumably Canadians) to non-white(and presumably immigrants) is also higher. Something that is also remarkable are the obviously drugged people walking in the street.
Another difference lies in their behaviour. Many are polite and friendly, or at least that's how they come across when they say things such as "have a good day" after you told them no.
I'm not entirely sure what the UK is doing differently. I didn't even notice that it "wasn't there" until I got back. It was only after I returned that I realized the difference.
I know that in Toronto, I sometimes get the feeling that the streets are paved with the homeless.
Maybe it was the Socioeconomic status of the area I was living in, but it just seems so much more prevalent here.
The UK does however seem to have 'council housing' projects that I think act as a buffer for many. The jobless and those on very low income, can obtain housing from the local council (municipal government). Essentially the risk of becoming completely homeless was very low.
But essentially it's a program where the municipality pays the rent directly.
I think the level of social assistance must cover quite a bit of the difference.
I really must add the caveat that I didn't study the problem while I was in the UK and am certain that there must be some homelessness there somewhere - but - it really isn't anything like what's in Toronto (and Ottawa that I've seen).
A council house in the UK is a dwelling that is provided by the local municipal authority. Rents are about 1/2 to 1/3 of the lowest market rent. They are generally set by the local council. In addition to this you can receive housing benefit to pay most of this if you are out of work, the rules for this are quite complicated.
The concept dates back to postwar reconstruction in the 1950s when they were originally built at a large scale to replace bomb damaged and run down private 'slum' housing. I think I remember a lecturer saying that in the 1970's as much as 60% of the British population lived in council houses. In the 1980's Margaret Thatcher introduced 'right to buy' legislation which forced local councils to offer tenants the opportunity to buy their council house for well below the market value. This lead to a large decline in the number of people living in council houses. I think the proportion is more like 20% of the UK population now.
There has been a big cultural shift in Britain in the last 30 years; living in a council house was considered 'normal' but is now stigmatised. The quality of the accommodation can vary widely.
Council houses are not always in housing estates ('projects' in US) they can be normal houses intermingled with private housing that just happen to be owned by the council and rented out to council tenants. However this is rare now because of the 'right to buy'
There is a shortage of council housing, if you want to get one you have to be assessed as being in need of one and you go on a waiting list. Your position on the waiting list is based on points. The points are allocated based on criteria like: how long you've been waiting; how many kids you have; if you are being threatened; if you have disabilities etc.
By the way, I'm not totally sure about the percentage figures, they are based on a memory from a lecture about 10 years ago. I'll try and find some references to back them up.
Incidentally, I live in an ex-council flat, which was 'right to buy'ed by a previous owner. In the whole block of 30 or so flats, very few are still council-owned.
The UK has quite the shortage of council/social housing so someone who is homeless tomorrow would struggle if it were not for "crisis" loans and housing benefit. Housing benefit pays the median market rate for a property in your area for you if your income is low enough. If your rent is cheaper, you can even keep a small amount of the overpayment.
A little over a year ago, I moved returned to Canada (Toronto) after five years in the UK. One of the most striking things I noticed was the difference in homelessness between here and there.
I later read Gladwell's article about homelessness. The story of Million Dollar Murray http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html
A homeless man who they had to repeatedly pick up off the street because he kept drinking himself into a stupor and falling down. (Hospital bills, etc..)
Apparently he cost the state 1 Million Dollars over 10 years.
So $20,000 per year $100,000/per year? Suddenly that low end guarantee is a serious cost savings.
Now certainly - "Murray" wouldn't get away with costing ONLY $20,000 per year ... but in a safe, (partially) supervised area, he'd have cost a lot less than $100k.
Gladwell also mentions that the data shows "most people" won't leech off these programs forever. Most have an innate drive to want to improve themselves.
Some will but actually - it's probably still cheaper than "Murray".
I am 100% in favor of a program like this - in principle.
Now try and introduce it at a Texas town hall meeting :) With FOXNEWS cameras in attendance.