What’s the solution?

There are no quick fixes or easy answers to the problem of

homelessness. However, we do know that not doing anything is not
going to fix it. Our primary objective is to provide safe and
adequate housing, transportation, and food.
Homelessness is an increasingly serious problem within society.
The solution has always been to manage, instead of end this
problem. Efforts to address this problem must be changed to a
proactive approach to end homelessness. Three key measures that
must be taken to end homelessness are to ensure living wages are
paid to all workers, the creation of more affordable housing units
and a Housing First approach for those who are chronically
homeless due to physical or mental disabilities.
On any given night there are 750,000 adults and children in
America without a place to call home (National Alliance to End
Homelessness, 2005). These individuals and families are living in
the woods, in abandoned buildings and on the streets. Current
policies to combat the problem of homelessness are costly and
focus on managing the problem. There are solutions to end
homelessness that would save taxpayers millions of dollars and
would put an end to homelessness.

Many envision a homeless person as a dirty man, sitting on a

sidewalk or park bench drinking alcohol out of a paper bag. The
reality is quite the opposite. The fastest growing population of
homeless people is actually families with children (50%). Many
homeless people are also employed (25-40%). Twenty-five percent
of homeless people are under the age of 18 and 30% are over the
age of 45. The percentage of homeless that are physically or
mentally disabled or have substance abuse issues is 30% (Hurley,
2002).
The two major causes of homelessness is lack of affordable
housing and low wages. In the past twenty-five years, the amount
of people who are homeless has risen greatly due to the changing
infrastructure of income, housing, and services that support the
poor. To eradicate homelessness, this infrastructure must be rebuilt
(National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2005). People might
argue that the homeless are lazy and just need to get a job, but for
many, this is not an easy task. Presently, a vicious cycle exists. It is
difficult to get a job without an address and phone number, but in
order to obtain a permanent address and phone number, one is
required to have an income.
Many Americans associate hard work with financial success,
however, millions of Americans work hard every day, but can not
afford the cost of housing. Those who have never been poor argue
that homeless people should get a job. The reality is that a job
does not always pay for housing. The National Low Income
Housing Coalition reported that there is not one community in the
nation in which an individual working at minimum wage can
afford a one-bedroom apartment. A full-time worker needs to earn
$11.08 per hour (215% of minimum wage) to be able to afford an
apartment; a person working a minimum wage job would need to
work 86 hours per week. Many citizens provide labor that is
crucial to the American economy, yet they are paid such low
wages, that they are unable to support themselves or their families.
In 1967, a full time worker earning minimum wage could support a
family of three and stay above the poverty line. Between 1981 and
1990, minimum wage stayed the same ($3.35 per hour), yet the
cost of living rose 48%. Between 1975 and 1998, the portion of
income the poorest one-fifth of Americans received had dropped
form 4.4% to 3.6%. Meanwhile, the income for the wealthiest one-
fifth of the population rose from 43% to 49%. In 1996, Congress
raised minimum wage to $5.15 per hour, but this increase did not
make up for the rise in inflation. A full-time minimum wage earner
in 1998 earned only 85% of the poverty line for a family of three
(Shipler, 2004). It is essential to create wages and benefits that will
allow families to pay for the basic necessities, such as housing,
food, and healthcare.

In the mid 1990's, the living wage movement began in the United
States. Living wage ordinances are legislation at the county or city
level, which establishes a wage for workers set above minimum
wage. Presently there are 100 living wage ordinances throughout
the United States and 70 campaigns to enact new legislature. These
ordinances cover employees working for firms that have contracts
with the city and firms that receive subsidies from the city. Those
against living wage ordinances feel the small benefit it provides is
too costly to businesses and taxpayers. Studies conducted around
the country have shown these ordinances have not had negative
effects on either the public finances or local economies. On the
contrary, the studies found that living wage ordinances not only
increased the incomes of the working poor, but actually
strengthened and added vitality to local economies by lessening the
poverty and inequality and increasing local buying power
(Egendorf, 2005). Communities need to adopt living wage
ordinances which are tied to the cost of housing for all jobs in their
region. This is one step toward eliminating homelessness.

Most people who are poor are renters. Many of these renters are at
a high risk of becoming homeless. The problem is two-fold: low
incomes and the growing shortage of affordable housing. In 1995,
the amount of low-income renters surpassed the number of low-
cost apartments by 4.4 million. A necessary step to end
homelessness is to make available more affordable housing. The
need for affordable housing has been on the rise, but the number of
affordable apartments and single-room rentals has decreased.
Between 1973 and 1993, 2.2 million low-income housing units
were eliminated, but the demand for these units increased by 4.7
million. Between 1993 and 1995, another 900,000 low cost
apartments vanished from the market (Balkin, 2004).
Some states have enacted legislation to address this growing need.
In 2005, the state of Connecticut renewed its commitment to
provide more affordable housing to its residents. Connecticut's
State Treasurer, Denise Napier, contends that the state's economic
growth is reliant upon an adequate supply of affordable units.
Connecticut has set up a fund to expand the number of low-income
units. These funds will come from an additional $30.00 fee that
will be charged to each person recording documents in land
records. Seven dollars out of this fee will then be given to the
Connecticut Housing Finance Authority. It is estimated that this
fund will generate $6.5 million annually and will be used for new
and existing programs that will provide housing to low-income
families (Connecticut Housing Coalition, 2005).

The cost to federal and local governments for people living on the
streets is enormous. These costs include law enforcement agencies,
hospitals, social service agencies and prisons. The University of
California tracked 15 homeless people for 18 months and recorded
417 emergency room visits between them at a cost of $1 million.
Too much money is being spent on maintaining the status of
homeless people, instead of ending their homelessness. The main
way homelessness is dealt with in the United States is through
costly emergency shelters. Shelters are necessary for short term
stays for people in crisis, but often they are used as long-term
housing. The United States Housing and Urban Development
Emergency Shelter Grants program pays $8,067.00 more for a bed
at an emergency shelter than the cost of a federal Section 8
certificate (Balkin, 2004).

The vast majority of community leaders believe placing

individuals in homeless shelters is the least expensive way to meet
their basic needs. This is not true. Due to the fact that they have no
stable place to live, homeless people use public services in ways
that are inefficient and expensive to taxpayers. Homeless people
are more likely to acquire costly hospital bills that are paid for by
the government. They also spend more time in jail for crimes such
as loitering or trespassing. This puts a strain on our prison system
budget. If homelessness can be prevented or those that become
homeless can be placed quickly into stable housing, it will save a
considerable amount of money.
It is possible to end homelessness. The Housing First
approach along with more affordable housing units and living
wage ordinances are the keys to ending homelessness.
Economically it makes sense. Getting people off the streets and
helping them to become self-sufficient is logical as well.