Zhao says having data on how people who did get the money actually spent it is something she thinks will help counteract stereotypes, increase empathy and potentially get skeptics and the public on board with the idea of providing cash transfers.
Now that the study is complete, the plan is to replicate it and expand it to other cities in Canada and the U.S.
The study ignored people with addictions, people with mental illness, and street entrenched (chronically homeless with nowhere else to go) individuals.
I think what they did was good and is encouraging, but it kind of dilutes its own message that “Homeless people are not what you think!” by ignoring the people who are what everyone thinks of.
Did you read the next part as well?
“Still, Zhao says having data on how people who did get the money actually spent it is something she thinks will help counteract stereotypes, increase empathy and potentially get skeptics and the public on board with the idea of providing cash transfers.”
right, but its kinds weird to say "lets give these almost-destitute people money in the hopes that it will create empathy to help those that are actually destitute’… like, were So close!
and honestly, watching these programs for a bit now… its not necessarily the exact resources (money/shelter) you give people with these problems. its the social support network you create around them that really lifts them up. the only way out of these pits are continual, supportive human contact
I feel like we are killing ourselves trying to solve the “few bad breaks but totally capable of participating” type of homelessness so that we can ignore the “I will never fit into your society” type of homeless. The solutions for the latter are much harder, both morally and financially.
It’s also politically expedient. The right loves the “worthy homeless bootstrap story” and the left loves that you can blame that homelessness on failures of capitalism. Nobody likes involuntarily committing people to long term inpatient care at public expense.
Some people get a really bad dice roll. Ignoring that doesn’t make it go away. It isn’t fair and we like stuff to be fair.
Or they focused upon what they could potentially help with the resources they had as opposed to larger systemic issues which their resources pale in comparison to. One of those two.
Mate…
If we can show that early intervention prevents things from getting so bad we can’t fix them…
That’s still a good thing.
What you’re saying is like “we can’t help people society failed a decade ago, so why help people society just started failing?”
Stopping an issue from getting worse is better than ignoring it
I think the study seemed to want to change the stereotype so I think the parent comment has a point. I would be interesting to see what percentage of people make up those excluded groups. The study mentions it is low but don’t provide numbers. Also, the opposition to current social service argue that the recipients should get drug tested and have jobs to receive them so this seems to support that argument. It would be interesting to hear what Zhao used to exclude people from the study and what could be done to help the outliers.
“People in general don’t trust those in homelessness. We think that when we give homeless people money they’re going to squander it on drugs and alcohol. That’s a deeply ingrained distrust and I think it’s unfair and it’s not true,” Zhao told CTV News
just to clarify, the study provides numbers, it’s just the article that does not
45% of participants were excluded for a score >= 6 on the DAST-10 drug abuse screening test, 13% were excluded for score >= 20 on the AUDIT alcohol use disorders identification test, and 26% were excluded for psychiatric symptoms according to the colorado symptom index
in total 229 of 732 participants passed all screening criteria (additional criteria: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 years, canadian citizen or permanent dresident)
It’s important to note that a housing-first approach is the gold standard for care. Getting people off the street into a safe, stable, living environment then allows everything else to follow.
If handing out cash gets that to happen, hey, it’s money we’ll spent. But I’m guessing… just handing a wad of cash doesn’t help as much as we might think- even if that is a few months rent.
Most places require prior addresses and such.
It’s a multifaceted problem and will require multiple solutions to address. Those are always the most difficult solutions because they’re expensive up front and may not show results immediately.
I just wanted to say this is the kind of comments that make Lemmy better than reddit! I had to dig to the very bottom of the reddit post for someone to point this out versus this being the top comment on Lemmy.
Note: I am all for helping homeless people, but excluding information in the title makes this seem like ‘if we give every homeless person $7,500 we can solve homelessness!’ I wish that was the case, but homelessness is a much more complicated issue
I think what they did do in the study was great. They found that the vast majority of homeless people are there because of temporary circumstances, and that money is a direct fix for many people.
But the conclusion they drew is a bit simplistic. Presumably they will need to try other interventions in the groups not studied - such as addiction programs for those struggling with addictions - to fully serve this population.
Here’s the thing … we don’t actually do anything to help unhoused people so why not try something like this? Too bad for us that we make money more important that human life.
40+ years ago some economists got together and created a study on guaranteed income. It worked, but unfortunately no one continued it because we’ve become so entrenched in the ideology of Reagan/Thatcher (article here).
I don’t think it’s possible to live on the streets and not end up with either a mental health issue or some form of dependency as a coping mechanism.
Yeah, it’s already hard enough not to struggle with mental health as is, even in materially good conditions, and then you add onto that losing everything and being forced to live on the streets with everything that brings? Maybe without even having any form for food security?
You are in a straight up survival situation. And it may be especially painful because you’re not alone out in the wilderness…
You’re surrounded by people. Many of whom are very well off. You are surrounded by people who have a home, food, luxuries, and everything, and you cannot have any of that. You’re not allowed to, by society.
It’s a goddamn nightmare. No fucking shit people struggle or just straight up break. I would too.
At the same time, is isn’t fair to say all homeless people are the same and lump someone who lost their job then had a medical emergency and can’t dig out with someone who is severely mentally ill with no access to the kind of mental health services they need. There are different reasons that people might be homeless and the way they handle an infusion of cash will sometimes differ. Yes, a person with a heroin addiction might spend money on heroin. Does that mean we should just let all homeless people rot?
They also mention that the majority of homeless aren’t that. So this is a nuanced story I think. We may be able to help the majority of the homeless simply by giving them money and/or housing. But for the ones suffering from addiction, mental illness, or entrenched homeless, this won’t be a magic bullet. It will probably take drug and mental health counciling. It probably won’t completely get rid of homeless, and the ones it won’t help are the most visible and most problematic.
But we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. And we already know our current approach is not even to the level of good.
EDIT: Grammar
Tldr bot didn’t respond, herea mine:
“They did not spend more money on alcohol or drugs, contrary to what people believe, and instead they spent the money on rent, food, housing, transit, furniture, a used car, clothes. It’s entirely the opposite of what people think they’re going to do with the money.”
Oh the ‘throw money at it’ solution to the problem that everyone online loves so much.
These solutions never work, btw. But let’s keep ‘experimenting’
Welfare was supposed to do this already. What welfare has turned into is a perpetual poverty situation for millions of people.
To the point where people are disincentivized to work, and perpetually stay on welfare.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/19/what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/
That link argues against your claim.
In general, most Americans ages 16 to 59 who aren’t disabled must register with their state SNAP agency or employment office; meet any work, job search or job training requirements set by their state; accept a suitable job if one is offered to them; and work at least 30 hours a week. Failure to comply with those rules can disqualify people from getting SNAP benefits.
In addition, nondisabled adults without dependents must either work or participate in a work program for 80 hours a month, or participate in a state workfare program. If they fail to do so, they can only receive SNAP benefits for three months out of any 36-month period.
The problems you mentioned are created by the welfare system itself.
Welfare cliffs are what disincentivizes work. It’s not that “having welfare disincentivizes work”, its “getting a few more hours, or accepting a small promotion, makes them ineligible for thousands of dollars of benefits”.
We have very few homeless people in Germany and we do have welfare. Where do you think the US failed?
Reagan’s racist ghost, is that you? I haven’t heard a good “welfare queens” argument in a while.
Huh, I looked through your article. It didn’t mention anything about people staying on food stamps in order to not work. Given that grocery costs have sky rocketed in recent years, I hardly think that the $300 some odd makes people want to not work, especially coupled with the fact that non-disabled people are required to take any reasonable job and work 30 hours a week. Interesting source for your comment.
I forgot the point of welfare was to make people rich as opposed to being a last resort safety fence.
We just prefer to give welfare to big oil and banks than to individuals.
It won’t significantly affect as the stereotype is for justification of cruelty and not because of logical error.
And you think folks even know stereotypes they don’t care about? The stereotype only exists as a thing in the minds of People that want them to be true.
Yeah sure. I know plenty of stereotypes that I don’t have an incentive to be true.
I am surprised it led to only 99 days fewer in homelessness compared to the control group that didn’t receive money. But I suppose it just shows how fucked the current housing market is.
Most homeless people have employment lapses that make it hard to find work, even with an address and fresh clothing. Aswell as possibly still having debts that led them to lose housing in the first place.
In other words, $7,500 is a great start, but as you said, $7,500 doesn’t go far with recent cost of living inflation. And as I mentioned, getting back on your feet isn’t easy because employers aren’t quick to hire the recently homeless.
$2,000 for 200 square feet: TikTok of Vancouver rental raises hackles
You can see how that money can disappear after a few months, not because the person made bad choices but because of how predatory corporate landlords are. These are tiny apartments, in what was previously the affordable area of town, (which is still a sketchy area but now also unaffordable).
Yeah but if you have no job and no home, it is kinda the perfect time to move to a more affordable state/city.
That is true… and also until recently I didn’t know how crazy expensive even just moving yourself is, either.
A bus from Vancouver to Lethbridge (where it’s $1000/mo rent in places more spacious) is $250. Probably could barely get half of that in a month of begging… There is hitchhiking and walking, and for one homeless guy I met he told me it took over a month to go that distance.
