You're viewing a single thread.
I'm gonna be that guy, since there are a lot of comments saying that "research suggests".
Source?
I do fully agree with it. The drug trade is impossible to stop, but decriminalisation and funding of healthcare will help many that are homeless. From tackling these aspects, helping those that want to free roam to do so safely, basically leaves you with those that just need some money to get back on their feet.
But, even if these things seem obvious, they need a source if you're going to speak from a position of fact.
Assuming the link works, this is a great resource of research papers on the topic - https://www.givedirectly.org/cash-evidence-explorer/
Here's one local to me. Slightly old but quite relevant.
There are a bunch of interacting factors, too. Something like 10% of the homeless are chronically homeless and don't really have good prospects of being able to give themselves housing stability even if given money. This population in particular seems to be better served by the "Housing First" movement where they are given homes and supervised so that they can then get the treatment they need relating to substance abuse, mental health, etc., from a position of at least having a place to go home to. Here is a summary with citations to studies.
But for the housing insecure people who are at risk of becoming part of the 80% of the homeless experiencing transient homelessness, or the already homeless in that category, dropping money in their lap might be an effective way to improve their lives permanently, putting them on a better trajectory. From what I've seen of the reporting of very recent studies, many of which were complicated by the fact that a pandemic happened right in the middle of the experiments, there is some evidence that giving money directly is helpful. But there's open questions about whether it should be a lump sum, whether big numbers ($500+/month) result in something different from small numbers ($25/month), etc.
So yeah, I think even if we start from the assumption that giving directly is more effective than in-kind support like free/subsidized food or healthcare or housing or childcare, or treatment for mental health or substance abuse, we have to figure out which populations are best served by which intervention, and whether temporary/time limited programs are as cost effective as long term commitments, etc.
There have been hundreds of UBI studies at this point. Most of them with headlines in major papers. They all say the same thing.
Source?
There are other comments on this chain hours older than mine with sources. But sure, I'll take a jab at it just for you.
The pilot programs have created scores of stories like Everett’s about how a small amount of money led to massive change in a recipient’s life. And a growing body of research based on the experiments shows that guaranteed income works — that it pulls people out of poverty, improves health outcomes, and makes it easier for people to find jobs and take care of their children. If empirical evidence ruled the world, guaranteed income would be available to every poor person in America, and many of those people would no longer be poor.
We've known for years, decades really.
That's true, but my original point is that we shouldn't state facts without sources. Otherwise, it's very easy to sneak falsehoods, or to twist that research to fit a narrative.
Except this really is well reported. It's not obscure or contested in science. It's not really what asking for sources is supposed to be for.