News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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)
Thanks for the info! 500 being excluded out of 732 doesn’t sound like a small amount. It appears to almost prove the stereotype.
No, if we ignore it, surely it will just go away!
Just make homelessness illegal guys, c'mon, so simple
Put spikes on everything for good measure! If they can't sleep they'll be forced to like, stop being homeless or something.
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.
Yeah so then it's not a study, it's just philanthropy.
Nope. It is a study of the outcome.
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.
But we find no problem in handing out corporate welfare to banks and oil companies to the tune of billions of dollar per year.
It excluded people's stereotypes about homeless people and showed how much of a difference $7,500 can make in the lives of most homeless people.
Tackling stigma is an issue but really wasn't the purpose of the study.
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
Yes, but the majority of visible homeless are.
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).
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 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.
Those issues are a lack of Healthcare and not a lack of personal resources.
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?
Not at all. I think a good program would include financial assistance and social worker involvement for all homeless people, along with addiction resources for those who struggle with it.