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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
According to Need