this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
263 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39356 readers
3250 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The new study, funded by the government and carried out by King’s College London (KCL) and the homelessness charity Greater Change, will recruit 360 people in England and Wales. Half will continue to get help from frontline charities. The other half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.

Professor Michael Sanders, who runs KCL’s experimental government unit, said: “What we’re trying to understand is the boundary conditions for cash transfers. When does it work? For whom does it work? What are the amounts you need to give people in order to make it work?”

One of the first cash transfer schemes was in Mexico in 1997 and since then they have been used around the world. But most evidence is from low and middle-income countries, and there has been opposition from politicians and the public, who often believe people will spend the money unwisely. Last year researchers in Canada found that giving CA$7,500 (£4,285) to 50 homeless people in Vancouver was more effective than spending money housing them in shelters, and saved around CA$777 (£443) per person.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

Money and shelter is always the first step.

Kicking an addiction is hard. Kicking an addiction without your basic needs met, is even harder.

People like to think that the homeless should solve the reasons for their homelessness first, and only then be helped. Because otherwise the help will just go to waste.

In reality, it should happen the other way around. The help makes it more likely they'll solve their problems at all, and hence actually leads to less homelessness overrall.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Agree with what everything you wrote, except somebody with an addiction doesn't act rationally. If an addict has an opportunity to do something constructive with money, or can satisfy the addiction just one more time... The addiction wins.

This is why addiction is so awful. It becomes the most important thing, and you will destroy anything else in your life to satisfy it. Then when everything is gone it still holds you down.

I agree the order of things needs to be basic needs first, but an addict is unlikely to make that choice and needs help doing it. Not just the money to do it.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Obviusly.

But you can't ask an addict to start resisting their addiction, if the have nothing else.

They need something to resist it for. If they don't have that, their next high IS the most important thing to them.

And this whole thing where we keep saying "the addiction will win every time" promotes a defeatist attidue towards helping these people that has lead to policies that are literally killing them.

The addiction doesn't win every time. If that were true there wouldn't be any saving any addict ever.

Addicts can and will turn anything and everything of value given to them into money, that can then buy them another high, but that CANNOT be used as an excuse to refuse to help them.

Institutionlize, maybe, but that's a healthcare problem, not a homeless problem. And that kind of help should be available to a person before they are ever put out of a home.

[–] rhombus 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you missed the point of the person you responded to. The point wasn’t to not help them, but to provide those basic needs and help them recover before starting to give them money as well. Give them housing, food, clothing, and access to resources to get better. Then, once they are in a better place to take care of themselves, give them the money to support themselves.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They edited their response. When I responded there was only one paragraph and the stuff about the support not just being money wasn't even aknowledged in their comment.