Not necessarily. There’s so no one size fits all solution to the complexity of homelessness. There’s got to be multiple ways to help people with different levels of, and reasons for homelessness. Whether it’s income loss, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, family intolerance of sexuality etc. They’re vastly different reasons that can lead to people living from couch to couch, in hotels, or in bus stops. This study proves homeless people are not a homogenous group, and that specific, targeted approaches can help some people.
That’s fine, but it’s a bad study because their results are “look guys, if you give homeless people money they don’t spend it on drugs and alcohol like the stereotypes!” when they purposely excluded any person who is likely to spend it on drugs and alcohol.
I think the study shows that ‘not all homeless people have addiction, so this particular bit of assistance can be very effective for those without that problem’. Many people lump all homeless people together, this study shows that there are segments of that group that can benefit from financial assistance. How does that make it a bad study? Research is not necessarily to discover new information, but to confirm or refute assumptions. This study refutes the assumption that financial assistance for “the homeless” will always be wasted.
Giving a big chunk of money to people that have recently become homeless due to having no money, not due to drug and alcohol addictions and other mental issues, is obviously going to help them get back on their feet. A study didn’t need to be done to tell anyone that.
I don’t think there’s a single person who has ever said that there’s not a single homeless person that can’t be helped to get out of homelessness by giving them $7500. They’re disproving something no-one suggested or thought but then claiming it also proves something that they specifically made sure wouldn’t be disproven.
Not necessarily. There’s so no one size fits all solution to the complexity of homelessness. There’s got to be multiple ways to help people with different levels of, and reasons for homelessness. Whether it’s income loss, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, family intolerance of sexuality etc. They’re vastly different reasons that can lead to people living from couch to couch, in hotels, or in bus stops. This study proves homeless people are not a homogenous group, and that specific, targeted approaches can help some people.
That’s fine, but it’s a bad study because their results are “look guys, if you give homeless people money they don’t spend it on drugs and alcohol like the stereotypes!” when they purposely excluded any person who is likely to spend it on drugs and alcohol.
I think the study shows that ‘not all homeless people have addiction, so this particular bit of assistance can be very effective for those without that problem’. Many people lump all homeless people together, this study shows that there are segments of that group that can benefit from financial assistance. How does that make it a bad study? Research is not necessarily to discover new information, but to confirm or refute assumptions. This study refutes the assumption that financial assistance for “the homeless” will always be wasted.
Giving a big chunk of money to people that have recently become homeless due to having no money, not due to drug and alcohol addictions and other mental issues, is obviously going to help them get back on their feet. A study didn’t need to be done to tell anyone that.
I don’t think there’s a single person who has ever said that there’s not a single homeless person that can’t be helped to get out of homelessness by giving them $7500. They’re disproving something no-one suggested or thought but then claiming it also proves something that they specifically made sure wouldn’t be disproven.