English: Instead of asking how much measures to address homelessness cost, we should be asking how much does homelessness itself cost. All the research, all the financial modelling that's been done on this, comes up with pretty stark conclusions. It is always cheaper to prevent homelessness than to let it happen. It is always cheaper to rapidly resolve homelessness than to let it persist. The longer somebody is homeless, the more costs rise and support needs become higher. It's usually cheaper to house and provide support for the most problematic individuals - you know, the stereotypical drug addict with complex needs - than it is to leave them to sleep rough. The research on this has been very extensive, so much so that the United States - a country not known perhaps for its generous social safety net - has come to the conclusion that supporting Housing First projects is the way forward, bearing in mind that the health-related costs of homelessness are lower in the US, because the entitlements to healthcare for those without insurance are much lower. But this was illustrated very well by the author Malcolm Gladwell, who told the story of one homeless person, Murray, about whom local police were quoted as saying, 'It costs us one million dollars not to do something about Murray.' He came to the conclusion that giving homeless people apartments and support was cheaper than not housing people. There are academic studies to back that up. A study by the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program tracked 119 of their chronically homeless clients and found that each of them was taken to the emergency room, on average, 36 times per year. Closer to home, Crisis modelled four scenarios and calculated the costs of resolving each case versus the costs of not resolving them and letting somebody become homeless. In each of those cases, the savings for preventing or rapidly resolving homelessness outweighed the costs of letting it happen by a minimum of 3:1 and up to as much as 14:1. The financial benefits of preventing homelessness will be spread across the public sector, but it is important to point out that whilst local government shares in those savings, the initial financial outlay on preventing and rapidly resolving homelessness actually largely does fall on local authorities and the social security system. So, we have to acknowledge that local authorities must be supported to prevent homelessness. I'm afraid that cutting their budgets won't work; that's why, for example, Plaid Cymru, as we heard from Leanne Wood, has prioritised the Supporting People grant in budget negotiations on three separate occasions.
Welsh: Yn lle gofyn faint y mae mesurau i fynd i'r afael â digartrefedd yn costio, dylem fod yn gofyn faint y mae digartrefedd ei hun yn costio. Mae'r holl ymchwil, yr holl waith modelu ariannol a wnaed ar hyn, yn dod i gasgliadau eithaf trawiadol. Mae bob amser yn rhatach i atal digartrefedd na gadael iddo ddigwydd. Mae bob amser yn rhatach i ddatrys digartrefedd yn gyflym na gadael iddo barhau. Po hiraf y bydd rhywun yn ddigartref, y mwyaf y bydd costau'n codi a bydd anghenion cymorth yn cynyddu. Mae'n rhatach fel arfer i gartrefu a darparu cymorth ar gyfer yr unigolion mwyaf problemus - wyddoch chi, yr unigolyn ystrydebol sy'n gaeth i gyffuriau gydag anghenion cymhleth - nag yw hi i adael iddynt gysgu ar y stryd. Mae'r ymchwil ar hyn wedi bod yn helaeth iawn, cymaint felly fel y byddai'r Unol Daleithiau - gwlad nad yw'n enwog o bosibl am ei rhwyd ddiogelwch gymdeithasol hael - wedi dod i'r casgliad mai cefnogi prosiectau tai yn gyntaf yw'r ffordd ymlaen, gan gofio bod costau digartrefedd sy'n gysylltiedig ag iechyd yn is yn yr Unol Daleithiau, gan fod yr hawliau i ofal iechyd i rai heb yswiriant lawer yn is. Ond dangoswyd hyn yn dda iawn gan yr awdur Malcolm Gladwell a adroddodd stori un unigolyn digartref, Murray, y dyfynnwyd yr heddlu lleol yn dweud amdano, Mae'n costio miliwn o ddoleri inni beidio â gwneud rhywbeth am Murray. Daeth i'r casgliad fod rhoi fflatiau a chymorth i bobl ddigartref yn rhatach na pheidio â chartrefu pobl. Ceir astudiaethau academaidd i gefnogi hynny. Olrheiniodd astudiaeth gan Raglen Gofal Iechyd i'r Digartref yn Boston 119 o'u cleientiaid a oedd yn gyson ddigartref a gwelodd fod pob un ohonynt wedi cael ei dderbyn i'r ward argyfwng 36 gwaith y flwyddyn ar gyfartaledd. Yn agosach at adref, modelodd Crisis bedair senario a chyfrifo costau datrys pob achos yn erbyn costau peidio â'u datrys a gadael i rywun fynd yn ddigartref. Ym mhob un o'r achosion hynny, roedd yr arbedion yn sgil atal neu ddatrys digartrefedd yn gyflym yn gorbwyso costau gadael iddo ddigwydd o leiaf 3:1 a hyd at gymaint â 14:1. Bydd manteision ariannol atal digartrefedd wedi eu gwasgaru ar draws y sector cyhoeddus, ond er bod Llywodraeth Leol yn cyfranogi o'r arbedion hynny, mae'n bwysig nodi mewn gwirionedd fod y gost ariannol gychwynnol ar gyfer atal a datrys digartrefedd yn gyflym yn syrthio ar awdurdodau lleol a'r system nawdd cymdeithasol i raddau helaeth. Felly, rhaid inni gydnabod bod rhaid cynorthwyo awdurdodau lleol i atal digartrefedd. Mae arnaf ofn na fydd torri eu cyllidebau'n gweithio; dyna pam, er enghraifft, y mae Plaid Cymru, fel y clywsom gan Leanne Wood, wedi rhoi blaenoriaeth i'r grant Cefnogi Pobl yn y trafodaethau ar y gyllideb ar dri achlysur gwahanol.