- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Our preregistered screening criteria were: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 y (homelessness defined as the lack of stable housing), Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10) (21), alcohol use (AUDIT) (22), and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) (23) based on predefined thresholds (see SI Appendix, Table S1 in SI Appendix, section 1.3.2). These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer.
Kind of speaks to how bad homelessness has become that you can have pretty strict criteria and still have a ton of people who need the help.
deleted by creator
Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%). Due to loss of contact with 114 participants despite our repeated attempts to reach them, we successfully enrolled 115 participants in the study as the final sample.
deleted by creator
Well. Yeah?
Studies like this are important to counter the reactionary perspective that giving money to those experiencing housing will just feed addiction.
To be fair they did exclude people who had severe levels of addiction from this program.
That being said, there’s more homeless people without severe addictions than with them so the logic still works.
I think you’re vastly overestimating the proportion of people against social safety nets who would change their tune when presented with indisputable evidence that they are wrong.
No, i feel you, but once you have data, you no longer have to even entertain those people in debate. You just act based on the data.
Too bad the people that ignore it are the ones making those decisions in the first place
Truth. Even the Dems in my state capital spent more time denigrating the housing first homeless advocate than they did discussing their own policies as mayor (which of course are just more of the same). Thankfully the dude who won was at least semi-progressive, he’s already declared a state of emergency and opened hundreds of beds. Here’s hoping he keeps it up and other places get similar quality politicians. In the meantime, I recommend joining your local Food Not Bombs if you can and getting to know your disaffected and unhoused communities.
They intentionally didn’t give the money to those with addictions though, so it doesn’t counter that at all.
The study specifically selected people with no substance abuse problem… if anything the author of the study were wary of what you say is a reactionary perspective.
deleted by creator
Aren’t studies like this part of how to solve homelessness, though? Like this method helps around 16%, then other methods can be used to help people who need more resources.
Part of the frustration with dealing with homelessness is that it’s so difficult to help the most visibly homeless, so people think the programs aren’t working or are lining people’s pockets.
deleted by creator
I’ll say it - it’s a bad study.
They tried to show that giving homeless people money wouldn’t result in them blowing it on drugs and alcohol like the stereotypes……while excluding the people that absolutely would blow it on drugs and alcohol.
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.
I’d rather they make 4 stories tall, 4m by 4m, modern rows of apartments rented for free, with good lighting, plenty of outlets and furnished with bedbug resistant beds. One dude per dwelling, personal shower and toilets, and a door that locks. The prison basics with a coat of paint, respect and decency.
So that the homeless just get the issue of having a roof over their head out their mind, and have a fixed address, and the ability to keep possessions for good
In many places there’s enough vacancy to do that with either exiting appartements, or with empty office space waiting to be converted.
The answer to why it hasn’t happen probably is complicated: lack of political will, ideology, the cost of building/buying appartements then maintaining and managing them so they don’t turn into a shithole, NYMBY, etc
But why allow it when you could make a profit?!?
Just ask anyone in the medical industry. You can’t be giving away things that make life easier for people!!!
This and the housing-first initiative both work. Here’s a great podcast series reporting on the issue:
