A B.C. study gives cash to unhoused people, with positive results
September 1, 2023 4:03 AM Subscribe
"The cash transfer is such a no-brainer. But nobody is willing to try it:" Dr. Jiaying Zhao, an associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, was part of a team that gave 50 unhoused people in Vancouver $7,500 and then followed them for a year.
"Giving money to the homeless just enables them" has to be, in retrospect, one of the absolute most messed up things I ever learned as societal "conventional wisdom" as a kid. One of the many pieces of tortured logic we came up with to explain why actually, it's Christian to refuse to help the poor.
Memorably, I was told this by my teacher in CCD (that's Sunday School for Catholics). That was late enough in my childhood that I understood it to be shockingly hypocritical, but not late enough that I realized I had the agency to leave the church (that would take another few years).
posted by eirias at 6:09 AM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
Memorably, I was told this by my teacher in CCD (that's Sunday School for Catholics). That was late enough in my childhood that I understood it to be shockingly hypocritical, but not late enough that I realized I had the agency to leave the church (that would take another few years).
posted by eirias at 6:09 AM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
The study did not include people who are street-entrenched or who have serious addictions or mental health issues, Zhao noted, adding people who fit that criteria do not make up the majority of homeless people.
Any idea what "street-entrenched" means?
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:18 AM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Any idea what "street-entrenched" means?
posted by Ben Trismegistus at 6:18 AM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
In some situations, when you talk to unhoused people, they are in a situation where, eg, lots of people will give them or buy them food but no one will give them cash. (Small bills are, of course, different from enough money to really address your problems.) Obviously if you want to help someone and they need food or want you to buy them something, you should, but otherwise give people some money. Save your small bills, set a budget for the month and give it out til it's gone, even if it's only ten dollars.
I saw a really good tweet that crystallized some stuff for me - I can't find it, but to paraphrase, it said that most people think that "homelessness and violence" means "homeless people commit or get involved in violence because they are poor", but the connection between homelessness and violence is really that we live in a system which creates a class of people who can be treated violently. We live in a system which creates homeless people for various purposes - to enrich landowners, to empower cops, to threaten the housed, to solidify political power. We have homeless people because our system creates them, and our system creates them because it is an advantage to the system.
Every time I think about our police budget and every time I see cops drawing overtime to brutalize some underfed, heat-sick homeless person, I think about how creating the homeless helps the cops.
To illustrate what I mean in a different way: You know how employers don't want to give cash bonuses? They'll gladly give you a turkey or a holiday party but they won't give you the price of the turkey in cash, even if you'd rather have $20 than a turkey. That's a higher-class version of "we can't give homeless people money" - the belief that if you give lower-status people cash (in this case, workers versus bosses) they will misuse it, and the belief that the issue is one of charity rather than justice.
The rich don't really see you or me as different from homeless people - sure, we have homes, but we're the same basically worthless, exploitable non-people who can be treated any old way that forwards their interests.
posted by Frowner at 6:22 AM on September 1, 2023 [87 favorites]
I saw a really good tweet that crystallized some stuff for me - I can't find it, but to paraphrase, it said that most people think that "homelessness and violence" means "homeless people commit or get involved in violence because they are poor", but the connection between homelessness and violence is really that we live in a system which creates a class of people who can be treated violently. We live in a system which creates homeless people for various purposes - to enrich landowners, to empower cops, to threaten the housed, to solidify political power. We have homeless people because our system creates them, and our system creates them because it is an advantage to the system.
Every time I think about our police budget and every time I see cops drawing overtime to brutalize some underfed, heat-sick homeless person, I think about how creating the homeless helps the cops.
To illustrate what I mean in a different way: You know how employers don't want to give cash bonuses? They'll gladly give you a turkey or a holiday party but they won't give you the price of the turkey in cash, even if you'd rather have $20 than a turkey. That's a higher-class version of "we can't give homeless people money" - the belief that if you give lower-status people cash (in this case, workers versus bosses) they will misuse it, and the belief that the issue is one of charity rather than justice.
The rich don't really see you or me as different from homeless people - sure, we have homes, but we're the same basically worthless, exploitable non-people who can be treated any old way that forwards their interests.
posted by Frowner at 6:22 AM on September 1, 2023 [87 favorites]
Who was it that said "If you don't want to have poor people in your neighborhood, give them more money?"
posted by gimonca at 6:30 AM on September 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 6:30 AM on September 1, 2023 [12 favorites]
By reducing time in shelters, the cash transfer was cost-effective. The societal cost of a shelter stay in Vancouver is estimated at $93 per night (6), so fewer nights in shelters generated a societal cost savings of $8,277. After accounting for the cost of the cash transfer, the reduced shelter use led to societal net savings of $777 per person a year.I was a little surprised that the coaching didn't make a difference, but then, they had selected for people who were recently homeless. I expect for those who were unhoused for longer, that would be more useful.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:39 AM on September 1, 2023
To illustrate what I mean in a different way: You know how employers don't want to give cash bonuses? They'll gladly give you a turkey or a holiday party but they won't give you the price of the turkey in cash, even if you'd rather have $20 than a turkey.
I had a previous employer who did literally give out turkeys. Sometimes you got one, sometimes you got two. I hated it, since I'm not a fan of turkey in general and also getting handed a frozen turkey at midmorning in the office just creates logistical hassles. Everyone has a turkey (or two turkeys), but only the fastest person is getting theirs into the office fridge. (I always gave mine to a low-paid employee who had a huge family, which he was always very happy about.)
Anyway, to the point of the FPP, this is just like housing first. If you don't want people to be homeless, give them access to housing. If you don't want people to be in poverty, give them financial resources so they can build their own base of stability. Ditto for hungry people and food. For whatever reason, we have gone in a punitive direction instead, where if someone is poor or homeless, they should be punished for that instead of given resources. It's stupid not just because it is mean, but it is also more expensive, but it is so deeply embedded that I don't know how you dislodge it and chance directions.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:43 AM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
I had a previous employer who did literally give out turkeys. Sometimes you got one, sometimes you got two. I hated it, since I'm not a fan of turkey in general and also getting handed a frozen turkey at midmorning in the office just creates logistical hassles. Everyone has a turkey (or two turkeys), but only the fastest person is getting theirs into the office fridge. (I always gave mine to a low-paid employee who had a huge family, which he was always very happy about.)
Anyway, to the point of the FPP, this is just like housing first. If you don't want people to be homeless, give them access to housing. If you don't want people to be in poverty, give them financial resources so they can build their own base of stability. Ditto for hungry people and food. For whatever reason, we have gone in a punitive direction instead, where if someone is poor or homeless, they should be punished for that instead of given resources. It's stupid not just because it is mean, but it is also more expensive, but it is so deeply embedded that I don't know how you dislodge it and chance directions.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:43 AM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
Any idea what "street-entrenched" means?
Googled a couple articles. Seems to refer to people involved in the drug trade, primarily younger, whose whole identity and livelihood are tied up in living in the street.
We need a lot more of these types of studies. It's important to combat the notion that pervades the media that everyone who is unhoused is hopelessly mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or is there because "they want to be." I was watching some news outlet the other day where they were interviewing the sheriff of, I don't know, LA or somewhere, and this sheriff was just mouthing the usual "we need more money for the police, not building homes. These people don't want homes" bullshit. It was kind of infuriating.
posted by Room 101 at 6:45 AM on September 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Googled a couple articles. Seems to refer to people involved in the drug trade, primarily younger, whose whole identity and livelihood are tied up in living in the street.
We need a lot more of these types of studies. It's important to combat the notion that pervades the media that everyone who is unhoused is hopelessly mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or is there because "they want to be." I was watching some news outlet the other day where they were interviewing the sheriff of, I don't know, LA or somewhere, and this sheriff was just mouthing the usual "we need more money for the police, not building homes. These people don't want homes" bullshit. It was kind of infuriating.
posted by Room 101 at 6:45 AM on September 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
I would also love to see a study that tracks the difference between places that use credit checks for housing and places that don't. I have a strong suspicion that credit checks and housing blacklists are a major cause of the houselessness epidemic. Even if you have a job that can pay for housing, what does it matter if no one will rent to you?
posted by corb at 6:51 AM on September 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:51 AM on September 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
The other thing is, when you get people off the streets rapidly, you cut down on the number of middle and upper middle class jobs needed to minister to them. There will always be a need for some skilled social workers and navigators and some people to manage them, but it just breaks my heart to see how much money the city spends on phony services. We have several phony task forces with full-time employees who are supposed to assist unhoused people, and it so happens that I know people who have been around at encampment evictions and witnessed those same people driving around in little carts insulting and even brutalizing people.
The people I know were there to help people pack and provide rides, which they do for free.
The last big eviction we had was during our last heat wave. They posted a little "here is where to call to get help" sign...one number went to a big menu of mostly unrelated services and one number was for...someone who last worked for the city over six months ago. Then they tell the media that they are trying to house people and people "refuse".
The more you know about this stuff, the sicker it makes you. There are basically no good stories about what the city has done here and there are lots of shocking ones. I hear these things because of some of the volunteer work I do and because I know some people who know encampment residents well. I am confident that what I hear is true.
Believe - many people out there are really just looking for someone to kick when they're down. The rest of us get fed a lot of lies about how the kicked want it or deserve it and then we get a big fat bill for jackboots.
posted by Frowner at 6:57 AM on September 1, 2023 [31 favorites]
The people I know were there to help people pack and provide rides, which they do for free.
The last big eviction we had was during our last heat wave. They posted a little "here is where to call to get help" sign...one number went to a big menu of mostly unrelated services and one number was for...someone who last worked for the city over six months ago. Then they tell the media that they are trying to house people and people "refuse".
The more you know about this stuff, the sicker it makes you. There are basically no good stories about what the city has done here and there are lots of shocking ones. I hear these things because of some of the volunteer work I do and because I know some people who know encampment residents well. I am confident that what I hear is true.
Believe - many people out there are really just looking for someone to kick when they're down. The rest of us get fed a lot of lies about how the kicked want it or deserve it and then we get a big fat bill for jackboots.
posted by Frowner at 6:57 AM on September 1, 2023 [31 favorites]
Just want to point out that cash transfers have been studied for decades—-mostly by economists—-and they work really really well. In the sense that they actually have a measurable impact. Most experimental treatments have null effects in so many poverty/developing settings.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:00 AM on September 1, 2023 [26 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:00 AM on September 1, 2023 [26 favorites]
Next study: we took 999 millions from a billionaire – and look, he’s much happier now!
posted by Termite at 7:05 AM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Termite at 7:05 AM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's important to combat the notion that pervades the media that everyone who is unhoused is hopelessly mentally ill, addicted to drugs, or is there because "they want to be."
I've noticed a recent trend around here where someone panhandling at a traffic light (usually a woman) will have their kids with them sitting patiently to the side and it just breaks me. It's just so obvious that they're desperately trying to push back against stereotypes and I can't imagine what it's like to be that person or their kids trying to look "respectable" and "well-behaved" in the hope that someone in a passing car will judge them worthy of getting a hand out.
And because I'm a coward and a terrible person and I just can't deal with that level of desperation, I usually keep on driving while promising myself that I'll slip a donation off to the local food bank when I get home....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:08 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've noticed a recent trend around here where someone panhandling at a traffic light (usually a woman) will have their kids with them sitting patiently to the side and it just breaks me. It's just so obvious that they're desperately trying to push back against stereotypes and I can't imagine what it's like to be that person or their kids trying to look "respectable" and "well-behaved" in the hope that someone in a passing car will judge them worthy of getting a hand out.
And because I'm a coward and a terrible person and I just can't deal with that level of desperation, I usually keep on driving while promising myself that I'll slip a donation off to the local food bank when I get home....
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:08 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
From author Jiaying Zhao, on Twitter (not linking because Elno):
Homelessness can happen to anyone, including me, as the senior author of this paper.posted by Dashy at 7:09 AM on September 1, 2023 [50 favorites]
When I got my PhD from @Princeton in 2013, my housing lease expired, I could not leave the country as my student status also expired, and my work permit from the Canada was in limbo because the Canadian consulate was on strike. So I was homeless, due to no fault on my own.
But thankfully I had amazing friends who let me couch surf for weeks on end, while at the same time I was starting my lab remotely in Vancouver as a new faculty at @UBC. I was lucky to have different couches to sleep on but the stress was horrendous!! The work permit finally came through after 3 months of waiting, I was able to fly to Vancouver, got my first pay check and housing. The rest is history.
I just want people to re-consider what a homeless person is like. For every homeless individual on the street, there are 2-3 times more hidden homeless people couch surfing or sleeping in their cars. They just need cash to get back into housing. That’s why I did the study, together with Foundations for Social Change.
As I was mulling this, I did want to say that there shouldn't be a narrative of "good" unhoused people versus "bad"/"street entrenched" unhoused people. Good and bad people are everywhere; you might be a terrible person and have caught a bad break and just need some money to get housed again, or you might be a good person who had been kicked around by life and therefore unable to see any future for yourself outside of drugs and living on the street.
We should be starting with money and housing first and then iterating - who needs medical care and emotional support before they are ready to feel comfortable in housing? Who needs a specific kind of housing and won't feel safe or stable in other kinds? We should also be supporting encampments as all this stuff gets worked on, and providing other kinds of support for people who are unhoused but not staying in encampments.
A big part of this would be sitting down with unhoused people over time and talking about what specifically would help them.
We have this culture of "it didn't work 100% in six months, let's end the program" which we apply to problems that have been decades in the making.
posted by Frowner at 7:31 AM on September 1, 2023 [19 favorites]
We should be starting with money and housing first and then iterating - who needs medical care and emotional support before they are ready to feel comfortable in housing? Who needs a specific kind of housing and won't feel safe or stable in other kinds? We should also be supporting encampments as all this stuff gets worked on, and providing other kinds of support for people who are unhoused but not staying in encampments.
A big part of this would be sitting down with unhoused people over time and talking about what specifically would help them.
We have this culture of "it didn't work 100% in six months, let's end the program" which we apply to problems that have been decades in the making.
posted by Frowner at 7:31 AM on September 1, 2023 [19 favorites]
Finland has a housing first policy for the unhoused, referred as the “name on the door” program. The idea that the first problem to be solved is not having a home, and all other aspects become easier once that’s been taken care of.
From what I understand, it has been a qualified success. A success in that Finland is the only country in Europe to have seen a long-term decrease in the unhoused population, but qualified because they can’t seem to get everyone into the system.
One of the main benefits of the policy, and which is its design, is to give the beneficiaries a sense of self-worth, because it eases a lot of the psychological burden. I imagine that a cash transfer does a lot of the same, because in a capitalist society your worth flows into your self-worth. Being able to pay for things is such a fundamental part of your ability to function in society.
That said, the housing market, since it’s run by people, is full of irrational prejudice against people who’ve been homeless, so taking the stress of finding a home off people is a benefit in and of itself.
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 AM on September 1, 2023 [13 favorites]
From what I understand, it has been a qualified success. A success in that Finland is the only country in Europe to have seen a long-term decrease in the unhoused population, but qualified because they can’t seem to get everyone into the system.
One of the main benefits of the policy, and which is its design, is to give the beneficiaries a sense of self-worth, because it eases a lot of the psychological burden. I imagine that a cash transfer does a lot of the same, because in a capitalist society your worth flows into your self-worth. Being able to pay for things is such a fundamental part of your ability to function in society.
That said, the housing market, since it’s run by people, is full of irrational prejudice against people who’ve been homeless, so taking the stress of finding a home off people is a benefit in and of itself.
posted by Kattullus at 7:41 AM on September 1, 2023 [13 favorites]
I thought there was a strong trend towards recognizing the value of cash payouts and the pendulum was swinging back in that direction? It certainly influenced Covid policy relief.
One challenge--politically perhaps more than substantially--with doing this large scale is that money is fungible. The Covid fraud was pretty large in absolute terms.
To illustrate what I mean in a different way: You know how employers don't want to give cash bonuses? They'll gladly give you a turkey or a holiday party but they won't give you the price of the turkey in cash, even if you'd rather have $20 than a turkey.[ . . . ] the belief that if you give lower-status people cash (in this case, workers versus bosses) they will misuse it
In the corporate world this is in fact somewhat different and is generally a matter of cost. Non-cash gifts tend to be less expensive, and have either a neutral or a positive impact. People say they'd rather have cash but then get insulted when they actually net $11 (after taxes & 401k contribution) for working all weekend. I've gotten my share of gift baskets in my career, which I basically throw away, but they don't make me angry the way having my work explicitly valued at a few cents an hour does.
In one memorable case that was mildly famous in the '90s, a small company was giving movie vouchers as a thank you for employees who went the extra mile. It was nothing big but seemed like a nice gesture. Some people don't see movies, though, so some bright bulb in management told HR to provide the cash equivalent. Since they bought the vouchers in bulk, it turned out to be like a buck and change.
posted by mark k at 7:43 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
One challenge--politically perhaps more than substantially--with doing this large scale is that money is fungible. The Covid fraud was pretty large in absolute terms.
To illustrate what I mean in a different way: You know how employers don't want to give cash bonuses? They'll gladly give you a turkey or a holiday party but they won't give you the price of the turkey in cash, even if you'd rather have $20 than a turkey.[ . . . ] the belief that if you give lower-status people cash (in this case, workers versus bosses) they will misuse it
In the corporate world this is in fact somewhat different and is generally a matter of cost. Non-cash gifts tend to be less expensive, and have either a neutral or a positive impact. People say they'd rather have cash but then get insulted when they actually net $11 (after taxes & 401k contribution) for working all weekend. I've gotten my share of gift baskets in my career, which I basically throw away, but they don't make me angry the way having my work explicitly valued at a few cents an hour does.
In one memorable case that was mildly famous in the '90s, a small company was giving movie vouchers as a thank you for employees who went the extra mile. It was nothing big but seemed like a nice gesture. Some people don't see movies, though, so some bright bulb in management told HR to provide the cash equivalent. Since they bought the vouchers in bulk, it turned out to be like a buck and change.
posted by mark k at 7:43 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
As I was mulling this, I did want to say that there shouldn't be a narrative of "good" unhoused people versus "bad"/"street entrenched" unhoused people.
....
We should be starting with money and housing first and then iterating - who needs medical care and emotional support before they are ready to feel comfortable in housing? Who needs a specific kind of housing and won't feel safe or stable in other kinds? We should also be supporting encampments as all this stuff gets worked on, and providing other kinds of support for people who are unhoused but not staying in encampments.
I'm all for cash transfers but there needs to be some care taken in terms of assessing suitability for such a program.
There's this idea that just by cutting cheques we can eliminate 'bureaucracy' such as case managers but what I've seen in practice is that giving a whack of cash to someone who's addicted and living on the streets is a recipe for overdoses and tragedy. Many of those who are extremely marginalized (living on the streets, with untreated mental health and addictions issues) need intensive support before a cash transfer would be helpful for them.
posted by sid at 7:51 AM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
....
We should be starting with money and housing first and then iterating - who needs medical care and emotional support before they are ready to feel comfortable in housing? Who needs a specific kind of housing and won't feel safe or stable in other kinds? We should also be supporting encampments as all this stuff gets worked on, and providing other kinds of support for people who are unhoused but not staying in encampments.
I'm all for cash transfers but there needs to be some care taken in terms of assessing suitability for such a program.
There's this idea that just by cutting cheques we can eliminate 'bureaucracy' such as case managers but what I've seen in practice is that giving a whack of cash to someone who's addicted and living on the streets is a recipe for overdoses and tragedy. Many of those who are extremely marginalized (living on the streets, with untreated mental health and addictions issues) need intensive support before a cash transfer would be helpful for them.
posted by sid at 7:51 AM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
Case managers are not an unmitigated good, however. There are a LOT of racist, incompetent and plain mean case managers and service workers out there - I've heard about this from literal unhoused friends and from friends of friends, and I've seen it play out in person when going with a friend to an appointment.
People who have no experience with this system tend to assume that it is full of highly-trained, compassionate people with good values, and it's really understaffed, underpaid, undertrained and a sizeable chunk of people who are not fit to do the work at all. Plus a it's a big bureaucracy and it wants to perpetuate itself as bureaucracies inevitably do - many of the people in charge are never, ever going to say "we need fewer caseworkers who are better paid and better trained and who see only the clients who clearly need assistance, since most people should be able to go through low/no-barrier systems to access the majority of what they need". Some people would say that, but not most.
posted by Frowner at 8:07 AM on September 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
People who have no experience with this system tend to assume that it is full of highly-trained, compassionate people with good values, and it's really understaffed, underpaid, undertrained and a sizeable chunk of people who are not fit to do the work at all. Plus a it's a big bureaucracy and it wants to perpetuate itself as bureaucracies inevitably do - many of the people in charge are never, ever going to say "we need fewer caseworkers who are better paid and better trained and who see only the clients who clearly need assistance, since most people should be able to go through low/no-barrier systems to access the majority of what they need". Some people would say that, but not most.
posted by Frowner at 8:07 AM on September 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
Any idea what "street-entrenched" means?
I wonder if this is a Canada-specific phrase, I've heard it refer to people whos substance use takes precedence over the the other things you need to survive. Usually chronic, long-term homelessness, poorly treated mental illness and no consistent engagement with health care. Hard to break out of but not impossible. For a lot of "street-entrenched" people a large injection of cash would kill them pretty quickly without a TON of other supports in place to keep them alive (see also: cheque day in British Columbia). I'd guess that the folks you'd call "street-entrenched" are actually a pretty small subset of the homeless-slash-houseless population but they're the most visible.
A social worker would be able to describe this better but I think I'm close.
posted by monkeymike at 8:09 AM on September 1, 2023
I wonder if this is a Canada-specific phrase, I've heard it refer to people whos substance use takes precedence over the the other things you need to survive. Usually chronic, long-term homelessness, poorly treated mental illness and no consistent engagement with health care. Hard to break out of but not impossible. For a lot of "street-entrenched" people a large injection of cash would kill them pretty quickly without a TON of other supports in place to keep them alive (see also: cheque day in British Columbia). I'd guess that the folks you'd call "street-entrenched" are actually a pretty small subset of the homeless-slash-houseless population but they're the most visible.
A social worker would be able to describe this better but I think I'm close.
posted by monkeymike at 8:09 AM on September 1, 2023
I'm fairly persuaded that the solution set for the down on the luck segment of the homeless problem is cash for short-term housing and then or assistance in relocation to places where there's a better match between their earning power and rents. The relocation issue is very important; policy makers are simply delusional when they, for example, are trying to keep homeless people with very low earning power in coastal California, where there's no reason to believe the local economy will ever again produce jobs for them that can pay the rent.
No one is seriously arguing to give unconditional cash to addicts. But you can simply give them housing, and it's demonstrably the case that their quality of life becomes better, and they become far less of a social burden, if they are housed, even while remaining active drug users. What we have to find a way to do is to give that housing cheaply, without the massive surcharge imposed by the unholy alliance of urban politicians, the real estate industry, and homeless services organizations. This may involve unpleasant things, like moving the chronic/addicted homeless to places where real estate is very cheap - but I have no patience left for people who think that a FEMA trailer outside of Modesto is less compassionate than dying slowly (or not so slowly) on the streets of San Francisco.
posted by MattD at 8:11 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
No one is seriously arguing to give unconditional cash to addicts. But you can simply give them housing, and it's demonstrably the case that their quality of life becomes better, and they become far less of a social burden, if they are housed, even while remaining active drug users. What we have to find a way to do is to give that housing cheaply, without the massive surcharge imposed by the unholy alliance of urban politicians, the real estate industry, and homeless services organizations. This may involve unpleasant things, like moving the chronic/addicted homeless to places where real estate is very cheap - but I have no patience left for people who think that a FEMA trailer outside of Modesto is less compassionate than dying slowly (or not so slowly) on the streets of San Francisco.
posted by MattD at 8:11 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
(Side note: COVID fraud occurred a bunch in the business loan program. Not so much in the direct payments to families program. Similarly in Canada, where payments went directly to individuals who could document that they had been furloughed or laid off or fired due to COVID shutdowns/slowdowns. The lesson, again, is that giving people who need money that money directly, not in kind or through middlemen (support agencies, employers, churches, etc.) is the most effective and efficient option.)
posted by eviemath at 8:11 AM on September 1, 2023 [20 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:11 AM on September 1, 2023 [20 favorites]
People are not production units to be shipped around for capitalist efficiency. People have family, social networks, community support networks. “Relocation” is not a humane or just solution to houselessness.
posted by eviemath at 8:14 AM on September 1, 2023 [29 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:14 AM on September 1, 2023 [29 favorites]
Also, many unhoused people have jobs. Minimum wage is so far below a living wage given current rent that one can have two jobs even and still be homeless in many parts of North America.
posted by eviemath at 8:18 AM on September 1, 2023 [19 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 8:18 AM on September 1, 2023 [19 favorites]
We have several phony task forces with full-time employees who are supposed to assist unhoused people
The astonishing thing is how much money is spent on denying other people benefits. It seems like a significant part of any funds-disbursement program* is devoted to carefully vetting the applicants to make sure that they actually "deserve" those funds. It would probably be cheaper to just trust people than to spend so much time and energy (and money) to vet their claims**, but we let moral outrage at people gaming the system push us into a situation where we're not only making it very difficult for even worthy recipients to navigate the system but spending more money to do so and achieving a worse outcome for everybody involved.
*Not just for poverty-alleviation, either. Most forms of insurance also fit this mold.
**Past a certain point, of course. It's pretty cheap and easy to routinely do a superficial check of someone's situation against extant government records; doing so ideally puts no burden on the applicant and will produce few false positives. If those don't throw up a red flag, chances are trust is warranted --- and even if it's not, it's still cheaper to trust than to dig deeper.
posted by jackbishop at 8:32 AM on September 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
The astonishing thing is how much money is spent on denying other people benefits. It seems like a significant part of any funds-disbursement program* is devoted to carefully vetting the applicants to make sure that they actually "deserve" those funds. It would probably be cheaper to just trust people than to spend so much time and energy (and money) to vet their claims**, but we let moral outrage at people gaming the system push us into a situation where we're not only making it very difficult for even worthy recipients to navigate the system but spending more money to do so and achieving a worse outcome for everybody involved.
*Not just for poverty-alleviation, either. Most forms of insurance also fit this mold.
**Past a certain point, of course. It's pretty cheap and easy to routinely do a superficial check of someone's situation against extant government records; doing so ideally puts no burden on the applicant and will produce few false positives. If those don't throw up a red flag, chances are trust is warranted --- and even if it's not, it's still cheaper to trust than to dig deeper.
posted by jackbishop at 8:32 AM on September 1, 2023 [8 favorites]
A big barrier to housing in my area of Oregon is having a prior felony or eviction. I've volunteered with several organizations that try to help the unhoused find housing. Even if you have the money, it's nearly impossible get into an apartment with one of those life events on your record.
posted by missinformation at 8:36 AM on September 1, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by missinformation at 8:36 AM on September 1, 2023 [10 favorites]
Any idea what "street-entrenched" means?
It's a term used in Canada to describe people in the following situation: "Chronically homeless or 'street-entrenched' individuals adapt to homelessness and can appear to be making a choice to remain homeless."
posted by xigxag at 8:50 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's a term used in Canada to describe people in the following situation: "Chronically homeless or 'street-entrenched' individuals adapt to homelessness and can appear to be making a choice to remain homeless."
posted by xigxag at 8:50 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
People are not production units to be shipped around for capitalist efficiency. People have family, social networks, community support networks. “Relocation” is not a humane or just solution to houselessness.
So one organization here in Kingston had successfully lobbied for city money to build/erect these individual sleeping shelters for some of our unhoused. But the shelters are allowed no real permanent place. During the summer, they move the shelters (and their residents) out to the edge of town near the 401. A place where these people do not have access to the social and medical supports they need. During the winter, they move the shelters back to Portsmouth Olympic Harbor's parking lot--which is more centrally located and therefore more sensible. If people in town want to point that this is a failure because a lot of those residents would rather stay homeless during the summer because of social safety net, it's because they need that safety net. Moving them out of sight to the edge of town during Kingston's prime tourism season doesn't feel accidental to me.
posted by Kitteh at 8:52 AM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
So one organization here in Kingston had successfully lobbied for city money to build/erect these individual sleeping shelters for some of our unhoused. But the shelters are allowed no real permanent place. During the summer, they move the shelters (and their residents) out to the edge of town near the 401. A place where these people do not have access to the social and medical supports they need. During the winter, they move the shelters back to Portsmouth Olympic Harbor's parking lot--which is more centrally located and therefore more sensible. If people in town want to point that this is a failure because a lot of those residents would rather stay homeless during the summer because of social safety net, it's because they need that safety net. Moving them out of sight to the edge of town during Kingston's prime tourism season doesn't feel accidental to me.
posted by Kitteh at 8:52 AM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
**Past a certain point, of course. It's pretty cheap and easy to routinely do a superficial check of someone's situation against extant government records; doing so ideally puts no burden on the applicant and will produce few false positives. If those don't throw up a red flag, chances are trust is warranted --- and even if it's not, it's still cheaper to trust than to dig deeper.
Giving large sums money to addicts can be the same as killing them. That seems like a pretty poor outcome.
Again, I'm all for more cash transfers. But a fair chunk of our unhoused population are addicts:
My concern is that the current policy approach seems to be to 1) identify a single intervention (that's coincidentally law cost and low effort) as a panacea for a complex social problem, 2) roll out that intervention at scale with little thought to implications and effects.
Case in point, our government's solution to drug addiction seems to be exclusively hard reduction in the form of safer supply and safe injection sites, with very little attention paid to recovery services, counselling, and housing. Which led to a woman getting shot outside of a safe injection site as the area had evolved into an open air drug market with dueling dealers and police kept out by design. Apparently one of the workers helped the perpetrators to escape. Safer supply, safe injection sites, and harm reduction overall are crucial components to fighting the war on addiction, but they should just be one component.
The biggest issue right now is HOUSING, and IMO giving addicts a place to stay would be FAR more effective than handing them a whack of cash that they don't have the skills to spend appropriately or simply providing them with a safer space to use.
posted by sid at 9:01 AM on September 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
Giving large sums money to addicts can be the same as killing them. That seems like a pretty poor outcome.
Again, I'm all for more cash transfers. But a fair chunk of our unhoused population are addicts:
- addiction or substance use was the most commonly cited reason for housing loss. More than a quarter (25.1%) of survey respondents indicated that addiction or substance use was a reason for their most recent housing loss
- the proportion of male respondents reporting addiction or substance use as a reason for housing loss (27.6%) was higher than female (21.0%) and gender diverse respondents (22.7%) the proportion of individuals who reported addiction or substance use increases with time spent homeless, from 19.0% at 0 to 2 months to 28.2% for those who reported over 6 months of homelessness in the past year
- the proportion of respondents who reported addiction or substance use was similar between those who identified as Indigenous (First Nations, Métis, Inuit or Indigenous Ancestry) (27.7%) and respondents who are non-Indigenous (27.2%). However, a higher proportion of Indigenous female respondents reported addiction or substance use a reason for housing loss (27.9%) compared to non-Indigenous female respondents (21.4%)
- in communities that conducted 2016 and 2018 Point-in-Time surveys, the prevalence of people who identified addiction or substance use as a reason for housing loss increased from 20.9% to 26.0%. Increases were observed for each age group, in particular for youth and adults
My concern is that the current policy approach seems to be to 1) identify a single intervention (that's coincidentally law cost and low effort) as a panacea for a complex social problem, 2) roll out that intervention at scale with little thought to implications and effects.
Case in point, our government's solution to drug addiction seems to be exclusively hard reduction in the form of safer supply and safe injection sites, with very little attention paid to recovery services, counselling, and housing. Which led to a woman getting shot outside of a safe injection site as the area had evolved into an open air drug market with dueling dealers and police kept out by design. Apparently one of the workers helped the perpetrators to escape. Safer supply, safe injection sites, and harm reduction overall are crucial components to fighting the war on addiction, but they should just be one component.
The biggest issue right now is HOUSING, and IMO giving addicts a place to stay would be FAR more effective than handing them a whack of cash that they don't have the skills to spend appropriately or simply providing them with a safer space to use.
posted by sid at 9:01 AM on September 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
Giving large sums money to addicts can be the same as killing them. That seems like a pretty poor outcome.
For the study linked above, they screened participants for "nonsevere levels of substance use ... These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer." It's clear that direct cash transfer isn't a panacea, but it does seem to be one potentially helpful tool. It would certainly be a big improvement on some of the exploitative bullshit I've seen referred to as "social services".
posted by ourobouros at 9:23 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
For the study linked above, they screened participants for "nonsevere levels of substance use ... These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer." It's clear that direct cash transfer isn't a panacea, but it does seem to be one potentially helpful tool. It would certainly be a big improvement on some of the exploitative bullshit I've seen referred to as "social services".
posted by ourobouros at 9:23 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
For the study linked above, they screened participants for "nonsevere levels of substance use ... These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer."
For sure! This is key. This is the step that made this a successful study as opposed to a travesty that produced dead addicts. My concern is that this crucial step will get left out or implemented incompetently when scaled up.
posted by sid at 9:26 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
For sure! This is key. This is the step that made this a successful study as opposed to a travesty that produced dead addicts. My concern is that this crucial step will get left out or implemented incompetently when scaled up.
posted by sid at 9:26 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
I worked in rapid rehousing; AMA. Frowner is largely right about so, so much. Here are some other problems with the model.
1) The population of people who can afford to get their MSW (which involves a lot of unpaid interning), and the population of people who have been unhoused or have friends who were unhoused, does not have great Venn diagram overlap. I only existed in that space because I was so knowledgeable on the subject people literally forgot to ask me if I had a degree when they hired me. I worked for a year handling cases and had a higher success rate at rehousing people than the people with MSWs. The most effective client work IMO is done not by people with expensive pieces of paper, but by people that can see clients as peers and treat them accordingly.
2) Literally no one except anarchists wants to live next to people they can perceive as formerly unhoused. Formerly unhoused people don't want to do it, because they've had experience living in unprotected areas and experiencing police and other violence; they want to live with people the state perceives as respectable. "Respectable" people, on both sides of the aisle, don't want to do it - conservatives have concerns it will increase crime, liberals have concerns about whether they will be able to follow community agreements.They then complain to their landlords and make problems for the landlords, who already didn't want to rent to unhoused people, because they're worried about the long term rent probabilities. The landlords then proceed to rigidly enforce the rental agreement, which either leaves the formerly unhoused people with an eviction, or leaving ahead of an eviction and needing to find new housing.
3) So the only solution is that formerly unhoused people seeking housing need to not be perceived as formerly unhoused people. That's hard when you have nonprofits named obvious "I help the homeless" names paying the bills. It's hard when people arrive with their things in garbage bags. It's hard when people arrive in shabby clothing, or with hygiene issues. Really, before they arrive at housing, they would almost need temporary housing to address those issues, get moving boxes to repack things, the nonprofit would need to hire a uhaul so that it looked like every other move, etc.
No nonprofit will do this, but cash will. So cash works.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on September 1, 2023 [32 favorites]
1) The population of people who can afford to get their MSW (which involves a lot of unpaid interning), and the population of people who have been unhoused or have friends who were unhoused, does not have great Venn diagram overlap. I only existed in that space because I was so knowledgeable on the subject people literally forgot to ask me if I had a degree when they hired me. I worked for a year handling cases and had a higher success rate at rehousing people than the people with MSWs. The most effective client work IMO is done not by people with expensive pieces of paper, but by people that can see clients as peers and treat them accordingly.
2) Literally no one except anarchists wants to live next to people they can perceive as formerly unhoused. Formerly unhoused people don't want to do it, because they've had experience living in unprotected areas and experiencing police and other violence; they want to live with people the state perceives as respectable. "Respectable" people, on both sides of the aisle, don't want to do it - conservatives have concerns it will increase crime, liberals have concerns about whether they will be able to follow community agreements.They then complain to their landlords and make problems for the landlords, who already didn't want to rent to unhoused people, because they're worried about the long term rent probabilities. The landlords then proceed to rigidly enforce the rental agreement, which either leaves the formerly unhoused people with an eviction, or leaving ahead of an eviction and needing to find new housing.
3) So the only solution is that formerly unhoused people seeking housing need to not be perceived as formerly unhoused people. That's hard when you have nonprofits named obvious "I help the homeless" names paying the bills. It's hard when people arrive with their things in garbage bags. It's hard when people arrive in shabby clothing, or with hygiene issues. Really, before they arrive at housing, they would almost need temporary housing to address those issues, get moving boxes to repack things, the nonprofit would need to hire a uhaul so that it looked like every other move, etc.
No nonprofit will do this, but cash will. So cash works.
posted by corb at 9:38 AM on September 1, 2023 [32 favorites]
My concern is that the current policy approach seems to be to 1) identify a single intervention (that's coincidentally law cost and low effort) as a panacea for a complex social problem,
a complex social, medical, psychological, spiritual, political, communication problem.
I live in something of a grey zone. I have unhoused/underhoused neighbours. They come and go. I also have a neighbour who used to be unhoused. In his case, it was drug related. He found a way to get past that and now works in that world, a detox facility. I'm guessing that he'd argue that the cash transfer thing is a great idea for some (probably most), not so much for others. Or as he broke it down for me a while back:
"Take ten people living rough.
Two of them have serious mental health issues. You could give them $7500 a month and it would all be gone after two weeks. For whatever reason, they're damaged. They can't properly take care of themselves. They require some kind of ongoing care/assistance and it's inhuman that they're not getting it.
Six of them are some version of me. Somehow or other (bad luck, bad decisions, bad timing, maybe something like a bad breakup that left them seriously depressed) they fell through the cracks, they burned some bridges, they woke up one morning under a bridge. They know exactly where they are and they want out. Get them some treatment, some stability, some training, some counselling and it won't be long before they're back in the workforce, paying taxes ...
The other two? They are 'bad'. They're criminals. For whatever reason, they want no part of living what you might call a straight life. I'm not even saying they're really bad (evil), because I know they have their reasons. I'm not even saying you won't improve things by cutting them a check every now and then ... but they're never going to seriously sign on with the community plan. You're never going to able to trust them."
TLDR: everybody on the street is not there for the same reasons which means we won't get them off with the same tactics. Any overall strategy that doesn't address this is foolish and doomed.
posted by philip-random at 9:48 AM on September 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
a complex social, medical, psychological, spiritual, political, communication problem.
I live in something of a grey zone. I have unhoused/underhoused neighbours. They come and go. I also have a neighbour who used to be unhoused. In his case, it was drug related. He found a way to get past that and now works in that world, a detox facility. I'm guessing that he'd argue that the cash transfer thing is a great idea for some (probably most), not so much for others. Or as he broke it down for me a while back:
"Take ten people living rough.
Two of them have serious mental health issues. You could give them $7500 a month and it would all be gone after two weeks. For whatever reason, they're damaged. They can't properly take care of themselves. They require some kind of ongoing care/assistance and it's inhuman that they're not getting it.
Six of them are some version of me. Somehow or other (bad luck, bad decisions, bad timing, maybe something like a bad breakup that left them seriously depressed) they fell through the cracks, they burned some bridges, they woke up one morning under a bridge. They know exactly where they are and they want out. Get them some treatment, some stability, some training, some counselling and it won't be long before they're back in the workforce, paying taxes ...
The other two? They are 'bad'. They're criminals. For whatever reason, they want no part of living what you might call a straight life. I'm not even saying they're really bad (evil), because I know they have their reasons. I'm not even saying you won't improve things by cutting them a check every now and then ... but they're never going to seriously sign on with the community plan. You're never going to able to trust them."
TLDR: everybody on the street is not there for the same reasons which means we won't get them off with the same tactics. Any overall strategy that doesn't address this is foolish and doomed.
posted by philip-random at 9:48 AM on September 1, 2023 [15 favorites]
Jon Baron on Twitter raises some questions about how much we can conclude from this study. For understandable reasons, the researchers couldn't follow up with more than half of their sample at one year, and the folks they lost track of were higher in the control group. (He raises other issues as well).
(I want to be careful here to say that I do not have particular expertise on the literature on conditional or unconditional cash transfers and my prior is that it's probably a good idea to give funds to poor people and also provide social services and housing. But the article and coverage is possibly making stronger claims than the data supports in this case, so your priors shouldn't shift much in response to this study).
posted by dismas at 10:04 AM on September 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
(I want to be careful here to say that I do not have particular expertise on the literature on conditional or unconditional cash transfers and my prior is that it's probably a good idea to give funds to poor people and also provide social services and housing. But the article and coverage is possibly making stronger claims than the data supports in this case, so your priors shouldn't shift much in response to this study).
posted by dismas at 10:04 AM on September 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
I don’t disagree with the basic findings of the study, but I’m still unclear on what it suggests in terms of the significance of mental health issues and substance dependence.
How were potential subjects determined to have mental health symptoms and/or substance abuse issues, and thus excluded from the the study? What that self-reported or through professional evaluation?
Then Zhao said “people who fit that criteria do not make up the majority of homeless people,” but the paper says 56.6% (43.4 + 13.2) of the 732 participants they considered actually did. Or am I reading Table 1 wrong?
And the term “street-entrenched” doesn't appear in the paper. How was that defined, and based on what?
posted by gottabefunky at 10:07 AM on September 1, 2023
How were potential subjects determined to have mental health symptoms and/or substance abuse issues, and thus excluded from the the study? What that self-reported or through professional evaluation?
Then Zhao said “people who fit that criteria do not make up the majority of homeless people,” but the paper says 56.6% (43.4 + 13.2) of the 732 participants they considered actually did. Or am I reading Table 1 wrong?
And the term “street-entrenched” doesn't appear in the paper. How was that defined, and based on what?
posted by gottabefunky at 10:07 AM on September 1, 2023
Thank you, sid. I hope that people who are commenting here have had experience with the homeless. There is no question that if I gave cash to some of the homeless I encounter every day, it would be spent on drugs.
posted by Melismata at 10:10 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 10:10 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
I hope that people who are commenting here have had experience with the homeless. There is no question that if I gave cash to some of the homeless I encounter every day, it would be spent on drugs.
There is a massive encampment blocks from my home. The city has been attempting to evict them without any real plan as where the hell they can go. We don't have enough shelters, any attempts to treat the unhoused like humans is rapidly shot down by people who Prefer Not to See a Poor. (I have sat in on city council meetings for my neighborhood and learned just how many people who live around me in relative affluence just wish the homeless would disappear or refuse to acknowledge that these people are our neighbours too.) "I am a parent and I find syringes all the time! What do I tell my children??" is a common refrain. I dunno, how about tell your kids that not everyone is lucky to have a home?
Frankly if I had to worry about my safety and the sheer shittiness that life on the street entails, you're damn right I'd probably use handout money something to make me briefly forget how awful it all is.
posted by Kitteh at 11:04 AM on September 1, 2023 [9 favorites]
There is a massive encampment blocks from my home. The city has been attempting to evict them without any real plan as where the hell they can go. We don't have enough shelters, any attempts to treat the unhoused like humans is rapidly shot down by people who Prefer Not to See a Poor. (I have sat in on city council meetings for my neighborhood and learned just how many people who live around me in relative affluence just wish the homeless would disappear or refuse to acknowledge that these people are our neighbours too.) "I am a parent and I find syringes all the time! What do I tell my children??" is a common refrain. I dunno, how about tell your kids that not everyone is lucky to have a home?
Frankly if I had to worry about my safety and the sheer shittiness that life on the street entails, you're damn right I'd probably use handout money something to make me briefly forget how awful it all is.
posted by Kitteh at 11:04 AM on September 1, 2023 [9 favorites]
There is also no question that giving cash helps more than half of people experiencing homelessness. And that homelessness can look a lot different than people’s stereotypes.
posted by eviemath at 11:06 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 11:06 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Then Zhao said “people who fit that criteria do not make up the majority of homeless people,” but the paper says 56.6% (43.4 + 13.2) of the 732 participants they considered actually did. Or am I reading Table 1 wrong?
It seems that well over half of the participants were eliminated:
We screened 732 participants from 22 shelters from four shelter organizations across Metro Vancouver. 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. To ensure accurate responses, the screening survey was conducted under a cover story without any mention of the cash transfer. Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%).
posted by sid at 11:15 AM on September 1, 2023
It seems that well over half of the participants were eliminated:
We screened 732 participants from 22 shelters from four shelter organizations across Metro Vancouver. 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. To ensure accurate responses, the screening survey was conducted under a cover story without any mention of the cash transfer. Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%).
posted by sid at 11:15 AM on September 1, 2023
Right, but then doesn’t that contradict “do not make up the majority”?
posted by gottabefunky at 11:22 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 11:22 AM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
The original statement was: The study did not include people who are street-entrenched or who have serious addictions or mental health issues, Zhao noted, adding people who fit that criteria do not make up the majority of homeless people.
The exclusion criteria also included children, elderly, non-citizens/PRs (or unable to prove citizenship/PR status), and people with "nonsevere levels of substance use".
posted by joannemerriam at 11:34 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
The exclusion criteria also included children, elderly, non-citizens/PRs (or unable to prove citizenship/PR status), and people with "nonsevere levels of substance use".
posted by joannemerriam at 11:34 AM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
I give people money. I have given people money when I was fairly sure that it would go to buy drugs, although in general it's for food or necessities. This is my reasoning:
1. A deep personal aversion to being judge, jury and executioner - this is a person asking me for something that they need and I can give, why not respond on a direct human level and give it if I've got it? If a friend asked me for a small loan, I wouldn't hesitate to hand it over and I've had friends with addictions. It's really bougie to think that I can and should evaluate and reward/punish every action by my social "inferiors".
2. If you're addicted, you're addicted. If you can't feed your addiction, you're not going to magically quit and be healthy on your own on the street - you're going to suffer and/or die or else you're going to do something else unsavory to get drugs. You're going to steal a bike or car parts, you're going to be forced to prostitute yourself, you're going to be forced to do shady stuff for a dealer, you're going to mug someone weaker than you, you're going at best to swap some of the few resources you have with other people who have cash or drugs and you'll get the worse end of the bargain. Much, much better that you get a little cash, buy your drugs and stave off withdrawal again.
If we don't want people to take desperate actions, we can't put people in desperate situations.
~~~
It sounds as though even if we gave out money broadcast with relatively little oversight, it would still reduce homelessness and the accompanying costs and problems by a lot. I personally would be happy with a lot. If say sixty percent of unhoused people were able to get more or less off the streets for an extended period, this would make it much easier to assist the remaining forty percent and it would make things easier in terms of dealing with all the trash and issues that can result from encampments.
Like, this is a population-scale/public-health problem, so we don't in fact need to succeed 100%. If it's your cousin Joe who is on the streets and you need to get him housed, you need to succeed 100% - you can't rehouse Joe 60% of the way. But on a public health level, if we can make large improvements for many people, it's not so important that we don't make total improvements for everyone - we can work on the other people later.
posted by Frowner at 12:14 PM on September 1, 2023 [17 favorites]
1. A deep personal aversion to being judge, jury and executioner - this is a person asking me for something that they need and I can give, why not respond on a direct human level and give it if I've got it? If a friend asked me for a small loan, I wouldn't hesitate to hand it over and I've had friends with addictions. It's really bougie to think that I can and should evaluate and reward/punish every action by my social "inferiors".
2. If you're addicted, you're addicted. If you can't feed your addiction, you're not going to magically quit and be healthy on your own on the street - you're going to suffer and/or die or else you're going to do something else unsavory to get drugs. You're going to steal a bike or car parts, you're going to be forced to prostitute yourself, you're going to be forced to do shady stuff for a dealer, you're going to mug someone weaker than you, you're going at best to swap some of the few resources you have with other people who have cash or drugs and you'll get the worse end of the bargain. Much, much better that you get a little cash, buy your drugs and stave off withdrawal again.
If we don't want people to take desperate actions, we can't put people in desperate situations.
~~~
It sounds as though even if we gave out money broadcast with relatively little oversight, it would still reduce homelessness and the accompanying costs and problems by a lot. I personally would be happy with a lot. If say sixty percent of unhoused people were able to get more or less off the streets for an extended period, this would make it much easier to assist the remaining forty percent and it would make things easier in terms of dealing with all the trash and issues that can result from encampments.
Like, this is a population-scale/public-health problem, so we don't in fact need to succeed 100%. If it's your cousin Joe who is on the streets and you need to get him housed, you need to succeed 100% - you can't rehouse Joe 60% of the way. But on a public health level, if we can make large improvements for many people, it's not so important that we don't make total improvements for everyone - we can work on the other people later.
posted by Frowner at 12:14 PM on September 1, 2023 [17 favorites]
The relocation issue is very important; policy makers are simply delusional when they, for example, are trying to keep homeless people with very low earning power in coastal California, where there's no reason to believe the local economy will ever again produce jobs for them that can pay the rent.
About that:
This data suggests that those who work in relatively inexpensive inland California have a harder time making ends meet than those working in high cost coastal areas. It further suggests that many workers are made worse off by moving away from high-wage places like the Bay Area. Why then do households (especially low-income households) appear to be leaving high-wage coastal areas? Based on the research discussed above and our office’s prior work, it seems likely that a major contributing factor is their inability to find housing.
Furthermore shipping people who, by and large, are from the places that they are currently unhoused, is shipping them away from family, social groups, their kids' schools and all the other things that cause housed people to choose to remain in their communities. Losing a place to live doesn't mean you deserve to not have friends or family or any of the other ties people have to where they live.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:30 PM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
About that:
This data suggests that those who work in relatively inexpensive inland California have a harder time making ends meet than those working in high cost coastal areas. It further suggests that many workers are made worse off by moving away from high-wage places like the Bay Area. Why then do households (especially low-income households) appear to be leaving high-wage coastal areas? Based on the research discussed above and our office’s prior work, it seems likely that a major contributing factor is their inability to find housing.
Furthermore shipping people who, by and large, are from the places that they are currently unhoused, is shipping them away from family, social groups, their kids' schools and all the other things that cause housed people to choose to remain in their communities. Losing a place to live doesn't mean you deserve to not have friends or family or any of the other ties people have to where they live.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:30 PM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
I wonder how many Mefi households have made no expenditure on drugs--which, after all, includes alcohol, tobacco, and legal weed--in the past six months. Perhaps we should all have our salaries withheld lest our employers enable that.
posted by praemunire at 12:35 PM on September 1, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 12:35 PM on September 1, 2023 [14 favorites]
There's a disconnect in the comments.
There's a BIG difference between giving a homeless person $10 or even $100 and having them turn around and spend that on drugs (inc. alcohol) vs giving someone addicted to opiates $7500.
The former is relatively benign, the latter might well turn out to be fatal.
posted by sid at 12:44 PM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
There's a BIG difference between giving a homeless person $10 or even $100 and having them turn around and spend that on drugs (inc. alcohol) vs giving someone addicted to opiates $7500.
The former is relatively benign, the latter might well turn out to be fatal.
posted by sid at 12:44 PM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
The purpose of charities and neoliberal policies is not to help or solve societies problems, its to make them insoluble warnings to the other folks to stay in line or else. Its also a jobs program for white PMC university graduates. Not a bug. Not an accident. An expensive and purposely enforced feature.
Join me next week while we ponder why managers mistreat employees even though it hurts productivity and other total mysteries of our best of all possible worlds.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 1:00 PM on September 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Join me next week while we ponder why managers mistreat employees even though it hurts productivity and other total mysteries of our best of all possible worlds.
posted by AnchoriteOfPalgrave at 1:00 PM on September 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
There's a BIG difference between giving a homeless person $10 or even $100 and having them turn around and spend that on drugs (inc. alcohol) vs giving someone addicted to opiates $7500.
Okay, I amend my proposal to only withhold the salaries of Mefites who are actually addicts to any of the aforementioned substances. This will absolutely improve their quality of life.
posted by praemunire at 1:25 PM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
Okay, I amend my proposal to only withhold the salaries of Mefites who are actually addicts to any of the aforementioned substances. This will absolutely improve their quality of life.
posted by praemunire at 1:25 PM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
Not all substance use is addiction.
Some unhoused people use substances to self-medicate, and some securely-housed people do the same. But members of the latter group have easier access to proper treatment and prescribed medications, through work- or government-provided health insurance.
About a fifth of the country relies on Medicaid, a federal program administered at the state level. Proving eligibility and maintaining coverage are complicated processes; demonstrating residency to a state agency without, you know, a fixed address is another difficulty setting entirely.
It's unlikely that anyone reading this does Scrooge McDuck backstrokes in their vault, and economic inequality is on the rise.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:43 PM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
Some unhoused people use substances to self-medicate, and some securely-housed people do the same. But members of the latter group have easier access to proper treatment and prescribed medications, through work- or government-provided health insurance.
About a fifth of the country relies on Medicaid, a federal program administered at the state level. Proving eligibility and maintaining coverage are complicated processes; demonstrating residency to a state agency without, you know, a fixed address is another difficulty setting entirely.
It's unlikely that anyone reading this does Scrooge McDuck backstrokes in their vault, and economic inequality is on the rise.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:43 PM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
Minimum wage is so far below a living wage given current rent that one can have two jobs even and still be homeless in many parts of North America.
Toronto is in the top ten most liveable cities on the planet, saith The Economist.
Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto, as of August 2023: $2500.
Minimum wage in Ontario, as of August 2023: $15.50 per hour.
Gross monthly pay for a full-time minimum wage job (160 hours per month): $2,480.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:46 PM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Toronto is in the top ten most liveable cities on the planet, saith The Economist.
Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto, as of August 2023: $2500.
Minimum wage in Ontario, as of August 2023: $15.50 per hour.
Gross monthly pay for a full-time minimum wage job (160 hours per month): $2,480.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:46 PM on September 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Even if you have a job that can pay for housing, what does it matter if no one will rent to you?
Friend of mine trying to escape homelessness was rejected because the rental company asked for tax returns and they were told their income for last year was too low. It was September.
They finally got a place but it required paying double the deposit plus of course first month’s rent. So, in ricochet biscuit’s example, exactly $7,500. It was significantly lower in my friend’s example, but still required $2,500 that they didn’t have and which came out of my savings with the understanding it may never be paid back. They’re just coming up on a year of being housed, but lost their job two weeks ago due to inconsistent transportation. So now everything is back up in the air.
posted by brook horse at 3:10 PM on September 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Friend of mine trying to escape homelessness was rejected because the rental company asked for tax returns and they were told their income for last year was too low. It was September.
They finally got a place but it required paying double the deposit plus of course first month’s rent. So, in ricochet biscuit’s example, exactly $7,500. It was significantly lower in my friend’s example, but still required $2,500 that they didn’t have and which came out of my savings with the understanding it may never be paid back. They’re just coming up on a year of being housed, but lost their job two weeks ago due to inconsistent transportation. So now everything is back up in the air.
posted by brook horse at 3:10 PM on September 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
The way to stop drug overdose deaths is through safe injection sites, safe supply, and widely available narcan. This is entirely unrelated to giving people enough money to meet their other needs.
posted by eviemath at 3:36 PM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 3:36 PM on September 1, 2023 [5 favorites]
To be fair, the abstract says “exploratory.” But also to be fair, the abstract doesn’t note that LITERALLY ALL* of their pre-registered outcomes are nulls, and they had a few to choose from.
Much ado about nothing IMO.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:28 PM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
Much ado about nothing IMO.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:28 PM on September 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
Can you put that in layman's terms, MisanthropicPainforest?
posted by Selena777 at 5:00 PM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 5:00 PM on September 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Basically they make a public plan of what they’re going to do before they do it, nearly all the things they were going to test showed no effects, all the talk is about the few outcomes that did show an effect. Since there were so many outcomes tested and most were nulls, the outcomes that did show a difference were likely different just by chance.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:15 PM on September 1, 2023
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:15 PM on September 1, 2023
The preregistered hypotheses, to be fair, focused on a pretty narrow set of outcomes, limited only to cognitive outcomes and subjective well-being -- not any measures of the participants' material situation. That said, the exploratory outcomes have some curiosities that to my eye point toward the outcomes being pretty noisy, such as spending on food being significantly higher in the cash transfer group, but food insecurity being essentially the same. I'm not sure that there's nothing to be gleaned from exploratory analysis of the data, but I think their choices to collapse the time variable and not explicitly model the attrition over time make it tough to draw convincing conclusions; where they do break out effect sizes over time, there appear to be temporal trends, and it seems probable that missingness (i.e. subjects losing contact with the researchers) is associated with some of the outcomes here. Unfortunately the data are not publicly available to dig into this.
posted by egregious theorem at 5:37 PM on September 1, 2023
posted by egregious theorem at 5:37 PM on September 1, 2023
Not precisely on topic, but this WaPo story His bags were packed for college. Then his financial aid disappeared, about the bureaucracy denying a homeless man financial aid because he can't prove residence was so heart-rending I could only skim the damn thing.
* * *
As to the paper? I think this is one of those papers that falls into "the less surprising it is, the more credible it is." They gave a bunch of people $7500 on top of any existing aid they were getting, and those people did better until the money ran out after three months. It happens to match my policy preferences in favor of a bigger safety net and more cash outlays. Spending more money on assistance should improve well being, no? Ordinary claims don't require much evidence.
But reading the whole paper I'd generally agree with MP's observations above. It's not statistically compelling. There was basically no lasting change in outcomes at the 12 month period.
One challenge is they selected, both intentionally and accidentally, for the 15% of homeless people most likely to benefit: They filtered out 70% of people during screening and then, of the remaining eligible people, half didn't follow up. According to the discussion the lack of measurable difference wasn't that people who got assistance regressed; it was that people in the control group also got off the streets*.
The societal-money-saved thing is an interesting argument but AFAICT is based on the point estimate of shelter-days reduced, not the 95% CI range, so not robust.
Like I said I'm fine with more money going to homeless and the idea that you could proactively intervene with a one-time grant to people soon after deployment, make their life better and save money is appealing to me. But this really doesn't seem to make that case very well--especially not if you're trying to figure out if this is the best possible use of funds put towards homeless relief.
* I'm familiar with this from my work in pharma, where it happens occasionally in drug trials: You see press releases (and internal advocates) saying their drug worked but the control group also just happened to improve, so bad p-value, rotten luck, let's try again. But it's more generally a sign that study designers were so nervous about the drug not working they've removed all challenging cases from the patient pool.
posted by mark k at 5:53 PM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
* * *
As to the paper? I think this is one of those papers that falls into "the less surprising it is, the more credible it is." They gave a bunch of people $7500 on top of any existing aid they were getting, and those people did better until the money ran out after three months. It happens to match my policy preferences in favor of a bigger safety net and more cash outlays. Spending more money on assistance should improve well being, no? Ordinary claims don't require much evidence.
But reading the whole paper I'd generally agree with MP's observations above. It's not statistically compelling. There was basically no lasting change in outcomes at the 12 month period.
One challenge is they selected, both intentionally and accidentally, for the 15% of homeless people most likely to benefit: They filtered out 70% of people during screening and then, of the remaining eligible people, half didn't follow up. According to the discussion the lack of measurable difference wasn't that people who got assistance regressed; it was that people in the control group also got off the streets*.
The societal-money-saved thing is an interesting argument but AFAICT is based on the point estimate of shelter-days reduced, not the 95% CI range, so not robust.
Like I said I'm fine with more money going to homeless and the idea that you could proactively intervene with a one-time grant to people soon after deployment, make their life better and save money is appealing to me. But this really doesn't seem to make that case very well--especially not if you're trying to figure out if this is the best possible use of funds put towards homeless relief.
* I'm familiar with this from my work in pharma, where it happens occasionally in drug trials: You see press releases (and internal advocates) saying their drug worked but the control group also just happened to improve, so bad p-value, rotten luck, let's try again. But it's more generally a sign that study designers were so nervous about the drug not working they've removed all challenging cases from the patient pool.
posted by mark k at 5:53 PM on September 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
My reaction to people saying that this sort of cash transfer is only going to help people without intractable problems is both (1) that’s something - if some people are meaningfully better off, that’s a win, and (2) reducing the total number of people on the streets has to make it easier to find and help the people who need more complex assistance.
(On the quality of the research, my sense is that pretty much all social science research is terrible. I’d trust a knowledgeable persons sense of the likely outcomes before I’d put much weight on one study.)
posted by LizardBreath at 6:51 AM on September 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
(On the quality of the research, my sense is that pretty much all social science research is terrible. I’d trust a knowledgeable persons sense of the likely outcomes before I’d put much weight on one study.)
posted by LizardBreath at 6:51 AM on September 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
My reaction to people saying that this sort of cash transfer is only going to help people without intractable problems is both (1) that’s something - if some people are meaningfully better off, that’s a win, and (2) reducing the total number of people on the streets has to make it easier to find and help the people who need more complex assistance.
Personally, I agree 100% with both of your points, and I think the majority of folks in this thread would too. My concern is that scaling this up properly will be challenging for many reasons, and I'm not terribly confident given our govt's track record with mental health and addictions policy interventions.
(On the quality of the research, my sense is that pretty much all social science research is terrible. I’d trust a knowledgeable persons sense of the likely outcomes before I’d put much weight on one study.)
Yeah, I kind of noped out of this thread when the tone turned to "people who work with the homeless and addicted are middle class interlopers preying on the least fortunate", but again, agree with you 100% that implementing something like this at scale should involve folks who understand populations at the local level.
posted by sid at 6:08 AM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Personally, I agree 100% with both of your points, and I think the majority of folks in this thread would too. My concern is that scaling this up properly will be challenging for many reasons, and I'm not terribly confident given our govt's track record with mental health and addictions policy interventions.
(On the quality of the research, my sense is that pretty much all social science research is terrible. I’d trust a knowledgeable persons sense of the likely outcomes before I’d put much weight on one study.)
Yeah, I kind of noped out of this thread when the tone turned to "people who work with the homeless and addicted are middle class interlopers preying on the least fortunate", but again, agree with you 100% that implementing something like this at scale should involve folks who understand populations at the local level.
posted by sid at 6:08 AM on September 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
There are many homeless people who get disability benefits, but it's just not nearly enough to live on. Lots of homeless people have jobs, but rents and living costs have skyrocketed. My brother has disabilities, gets meager benefits, works part-time. I know people who live in vans and cars for a variety of reasons, some of the reasons are that they can't afford a home to buy or rent or share. There's an obvious homeless population in encampments in town, and a large unseen population in cars, RVs, tents. A shocking number of children. And, of course, the underhoused sharing crowded apartments, people who should leave a toxic and potentially dangerous situation, but can't because housing is scarce and expensive.
Wages in the US are way too low. Expenses are high, esp. housing, which has been aggressively monetized(profit has been maximized as trusts buy housing and increase market rates) in the last 5 - 10 years. Wealth has flowed upwards to the very wealthy, and it has consequences. If I lived in a tent this difficult summer of massive rains, humidity, sporadic heat, and mosquitos, I'd use drugs, too. In Maine winter? I can't even.
Addiction feeds vicious drug cartels and gangs, tobacco and alcohol profits, and treatments/ solutions don't seem particularly effective against the profits involved.
People deserve decent pay and benefits for work. People who can't work deserve a decent life. The economy is more and more inhumane. Where I live, homelessness is increasing; it's a wretched refection of the failure of the United States as a country.
posted by theora55 at 4:46 PM on September 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
Wages in the US are way too low. Expenses are high, esp. housing, which has been aggressively monetized(profit has been maximized as trusts buy housing and increase market rates) in the last 5 - 10 years. Wealth has flowed upwards to the very wealthy, and it has consequences. If I lived in a tent this difficult summer of massive rains, humidity, sporadic heat, and mosquitos, I'd use drugs, too. In Maine winter? I can't even.
Addiction feeds vicious drug cartels and gangs, tobacco and alcohol profits, and treatments/ solutions don't seem particularly effective against the profits involved.
People deserve decent pay and benefits for work. People who can't work deserve a decent life. The economy is more and more inhumane. Where I live, homelessness is increasing; it's a wretched refection of the failure of the United States as a country.
posted by theora55 at 4:46 PM on September 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
« Older Pioneering wind-powered cargo ship sets sail | Ground control to Major Todd Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I see a lot of people on the off-ramps these days. (Sometimes people are homeless, sometimes just trying to avoid homelessness.) That's gotta be the hardest thing to do in the world. If I have bills and I can do it safely, I always try to give something.
The problem that people who don't have a home have is that they don't have a home. The problem that people who don't have money have is that they don't have money. You're not gonna fix any other problem, be it a mental illness or an addiction, when somebody has those two problems.
posted by mellow seas at 5:41 AM on September 1, 2023 [30 favorites]