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.

  • wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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.