West Coast baby

  • funkless_eck
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    is that truly the case, or just a pervasive urban legend?

    which studies support this theory?

      • funkless_eck
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        not that I don’t believe you, but the reason I asked for studies/sources is I expect to be flooded with stories about how people knows someone who knows someone who knows someone where it didn’t work once or twice (respectfully, this is what your story boils down to), and I hope you won’t be insulted if I can’t consider that a good representation of a much-maligned part of society.

          • funkless_eck
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            the study you mentioned, but refused to link to, or quote, agrees with me and not yourself, I quote:

            a longitudinal study in London and three provincial English cities of resettlement outcomes over 18 months for 400 single homeless people. A high rate of tenancy sustain- ment was achieved: after 15/18 months, 78% were still in the original tenancy, 7% had moved to another tenancy, and 15% no longer had a tenancy. The use of temporary accommodation prior to being resettled and the duration of stay had a strong influence on tenancy sustainment. People who had been in hostels or temporary supported housing for more than 12 months immediately before being resettled, and those who had been in the last project more than six months, were more likely to have retained a tenancy than those who had had short stays and/or slept rough intermit- tently during the 12 months before resettlement. The findings are consistent with the proposition that the current policy priority in England for shorter stays in temporar y accommodation will lead to poorer resettlement outcomes, more returns to homelessness, and a net increase in expenditure on homelessness services.

              • funkless_eck
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                you buried the “extensive further help” clause a little, and your use of “extensive” makes it sound onerous, which is why I responded assuming you were dead against it.

                If you had said something like “While I agree housing can help, but there does need to be some support as well” - I probably would’ve taken it differently.

                You are right that I could have been more generous in interpreting your use of the word “extensive” as negative.

    • Knightfox@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think between their argument and your own, yours is the one in more need of citation. Which is more likely, that giving a house to everyone will solve homelessness or that some people have problems beyond just being homeless? He’s not saying that it wouldn’t help some people, he’s just saying that there would still be some number of people who need help beyond this.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, there aren’t statistics about these people. Just experiences and the experiences of others who work with them.

      Many homeless people refuse to take up help like housing because they do not want to cooperate with helper organisations. And they also don’t want to get interviewed: https://idw-online.de/de/news765112

      We don’t even really know how many there are because there are no reliable statistics. How would you count them anyway?

      All housing first projects pre-select the people they give a home to. The reason is clear. They don’t have homes for everyone, so they take those which will give the best results. In Berlin, Germany they literally have to write applications for the project: https://www.berlin.de/sen/soziales/besondere-lebenssituationen/wohnungslose/wohnen/housing-first-1293115.php

      https://housingfirst.berlin/aufnahme

      And they need to already be in the welfare system!

      The same goes for Finland, which is the model country for a housing first approach. Putting people who already are in the welfare system in homes with help offers has the best results. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol22num2/ch4.pdf

      Best results means it works for about half of homeless people.

      For the other half, they need a step-by-step approach to have them able living in a home again (or for the first time in a long time). You can’t just put them in an apartment with an address for counseling and that will work out.

      Source: you can read about that in the PDF above, for example. Or any other study about the homeless which usually mentions at least the many who fall through the cracks.

      These are migrants without refugee status and people with severe drug and alcohol abuse issues or other mental illness. It won’t work to “put them out of sight out of mind”.

      Homeless people aren’t a homogeneous group of people. And while it works for some, housing first is not the solution. Because it leaves an estimated half of them behind. It also omits that there a still a lot of help going on in the background. It’s not just give them a home and that magically solves all their problems. Far from it …

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even if it has issues, housing first solves far more problems than any other solution. If you are so opposed to housing first initiatives, then propose an alternative solution that will work better.

        I’m waiting.

        You can’t.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why do you think I am against housing first? I never said that I am against that. I said it does not solve homelessness. You need additional systems in place to solve it.

      • funkless_eck
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m on mobile and can’t read German, I’ll have to wait until later to run those articles through a translator to see what they’re getting at.

        But I do wonder about you saying we can only halve homelessness instantly, and the next quarter needs some help, and the next 10% needs a lot of help and after that things get more diffocult: that means it doesn’t work and isn’t worth trying at all

        Wouldn’t halving homelessness be pretty damn successful?

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Of course it is great but it won’t solve homelessness. Which is what the image suggests. And obviously it doesn’t.

          • funkless_eck
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s your tolerance threshold for a solution? One source I quoted elsewhere said it would solve up to 75% of homelessness.

            People are allergic or immune to penicillin, that doesn’t mean that its not a solution to bacterial infections.

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If someone said “Penicillin solves bacterial infections” I would also say this is not true. There are bacterial infections which can’t be cured by penicillin and some people can’t take it at all.

              • funkless_eck
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Understood. How should one phrase a vast majority success with a tolerance of a minority of failures in casual conversations?

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am not sure a vast majority success is correct if people interpret the concept literally (like in the meme).

                  Finland is the country with the best results, afaik.

                  These are the numbers of those homeless who are accounted for and got help (so missing those who are not in welfare for example and therefore the numbers are estimates): https://www.ara.fi/en-US/Materials/Homelessness_reports/Homelessness_in_Finland_2022(65349)#:~:text=At the end of 2022,a decrease of 185 people.

                  They started the housing first approach in 2007. There is a steady decline in homelessness, so I would say it’s an important part of the new solution.

                  But if you look at the organisations which allocate the housing you see they also hired hundreds of extra personal, invested heavily in the help networks, anti-drug abuse and other programs.

                  Many of the housing complexes have staff on site or they visit the scattered apartments.

                  And Finland invested additionally into prevention methods to counter people getting homeless in the first place. They changed laws and built teams and places to help people not get homeless.

                  What do you call it than? It just seems wrong in the way it was put in the meme.