Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

[shiny!]

Finally something positive:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-homelessness/

Excerpt from the article:

Indeed, British Prime Minister David Cameron summed up the fears and frustrations of many when he asked;

"Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations? Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences... Reward without effort.”
So how do we begin to fix what’s broken?

Jay Goldinger might have the answer. For the last 805 Sundays, he and a small cadre of volunteers have stood on the frontline of Los Angeles’ forgotten jobless and homeless population and delivered change we can truly believe in. Goldinger’s initiative called "Food on Foot" does not merely give out food and clothing to the down and out but has helped turn many of them into productive taxpayers.

His tough-love approach is one that works to motivate people to take responsibility for their actions. Participants start by sweeping the streets. A completed week then brings cards redeemable for food. Ten consecutive weeks brings greater incentives and rewards. For those who don’t miss a week, they can, during the course of a year, get help with medical and dental problems and even see a $3,000 bank account opened in their name while being provided with safe housing and help getting a real job.

What’s the catch?

Accountability. Backsliding is never rewarded. And there is another key component. Jay demands of everyone—random acts of kindness-- like sharing some food, guiding a blind person across the street, helping an elderly person with their shopping…

Simple acts that remind us it isn’t how much you amass but what you are prepared to do for others that should define our worth as human beings. These simple acts challenge people clinging to the lowest rung of society to validate their self-worth and to realize that victimhood isn’t a coat that protects you from the elements but a straitjacket that locks you in to a cycle of misery.

To date, Food-on-Foot boasts an 89% success rate; roughly the reverse percentage of success enjoyed by government-funded programs. Oh, and did I mention that from Day 1 Jay has refused any and all government funding? ...

[cjppjc]

Re: Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

Great find. Thank you. It shows very well one person making a difference. No expression of what things should be like. How society should change. Just one person taking responsibity for himself. That is really how things change.

[Ghent12]

Re: Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

Speaking of programs to help the poor, I've often wondered why welfare is set up the way it is. You lose welfare money for every amount of wage you earn, so the implicit tax on your labor is very high. Why isn't it set up to be a timed, and perhaps reviewed for additional time if needed, and the money never goes down as a function of what is being earned?

I like the tough-love approach, but there is a lot that can be done in the field of social programs to improve the incentives they provide for people to do "the right thing."

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

Speaking of programs to help the poor, I've often wondered why welfare is set up the way it is. You lose welfare money for every amount of wage you earn, so the implicit tax on your labor is very high. Why isn't it set up to be a timed, and perhaps reviewed for additional time if needed, and the money never goes down as a function of what is being earned?

I like the tough-love approach, but there is a lot that can be done in the field of social programs to improve the incentives they provide for people to do "the right thing."

You are right there. Some things are a shame, and this is one of them. The fact that welfare programs only test for income and not wealth is another. There's nothing like someone on 4000sqft on the ocean getting heating assistance while surviving off of a trust fund (I saw this one first hand).

The incentives embedded in welfare programs are perverse. Ultimately it would be better if some formula handled it that worked along the lines of:

Wealth Test (If networth > x then ineligible)
Income Test (If income > y then ineligible)
Income + Welfare = z
As income rises, z rises until y.

What you want to have happen is to have welfare "taper off" while still rewarding the recipient for making more income until they are past the threshold criterion.

So for instance, if one made $10k/yr, then total welfare benefits might be $5k/yr. If that person pulls in $15k/yr the next year you might want total benefits to be $2k/yr so that they have a net gain of $2k/yr. At $19k/yr you may want to give $1k/yr until they hit $20 where it evens out.

What you don't want is what we have today - a hard threshold criteria beyond which all of the benefits cut off. It incentivises perpetual poverty.

Of course, some will argue that then you're not helping those most in-need, but you really do want to reward work where you can.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

There is a homeless shelter in Cartersville, GA that does a great job of getting people back into society as productive members. It is open 24 hours a day unlike traditional homeless shelters which alows those who get a job that is at night to have a place during the day.

http://www.goodneighborshelter.org/i...ns-accomplish/

[cjppjc]

Re: Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

"From what we get, we can make a living. What we give; however, makes a life."

"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost."

"Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can."

"The best way to judge a life is to ask yourself, "Did I make the best use of the time I had?"

Arthur Ashe

[Ghent12]

Re: Some Good News: A Homelessness Program that Works.

You are right there. Some things are a shame, and this is one of them. The fact that welfare programs only test for income and not wealth is another. There's nothing like someone on 4000sqft on the ocean getting heating assistance while surviving off of a trust fund (I saw this one first hand).

The incentives embedded in welfare programs are perverse. Ultimately it would be better if some formula handled it that worked along the lines of:

Wealth Test (If networth > x then ineligible)
Income Test (If income > y then ineligible)
Income + Welfare = z
As income rises, z rises until y.

What you want to have happen is to have welfare "taper off" while still rewarding the recipient for making more income until they are past the threshold criterion.

So for instance, if one made $10k/yr, then total welfare benefits might be $5k/yr. If that person pulls in $15k/yr the next year you might want total benefits to be $2k/yr so that they have a net gain of $2k/yr. At $19k/yr you may want to give $1k/yr until they hit $20 where it evens out.

What you don't want is what we have today - a hard threshold criteria beyond which all of the benefits cut off. It incentivises perpetual poverty.

Of course, some will argue that then you're not helping those most in-need, but you really do want to reward work where you can.

Well certainly I agree that welfare shouldn't be given to those already quite wealthy in a general sense as it exists today, but I do not at all agree that welfare should taper off as wage/other income increases. This is the primary incentive to not increase the wages you earn.

That is why I would be in favor of a timed deal--you can start receiving welfare, but you will only receive it for 8 or 12 months, and it will automatically (and perhaps only slightly) taper off during that period. After that period, no more welfare; but baring criminal offenses your welfare will not be stopped during that period. This gives a person who needs welfare the assistance they need but also gives them immediate incentive to go out and earn as much as they can on top of that.

In fact, I don't think that welfare needs to be a "needs-based" program at all. I think it should be a once-per-lifetime, once-per-decade or once-per-15-year deal that is available to pretty much anyone for any reason. Call it the "Civil Boost" program or something. Many would "use" their boost right off the bat and irresponsibly, but many more would save it as an implicit public savings for when the hard times come. Some enterprising individuals may use it to start off their life (teenagers kicked out of their parents' home) or a business. One of the benefits of the program is that we could probably immediately do away with Secion 8 and traditional welfare, and even raise the age of Social Security relatively guilt free.

Guess I'm just spinning my wheels here, but my overall point is that linking social assistance to income gives extremely negative incentives to people receiving that assistance.