• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interesting new study on giving money to homeless people

Essentially the study says that when you give people a relatively large sum of money they can rent a room faster and feed themselves better. No duh. It took an entire study to figure that out? Send me a $1000 and I'll eat better too over the next couple months. But it still doesn't solve the problems once that initial handout runs down.
what was shown, from a selected portion of the homeless, if that trhey could properly manage their money
a hand out to them would prove to advance their circumstance
that group positioned themselves for employment
hiopefully, the need for a handout will soon end
and that problem will be solved for said study cohort
 
what was shown, from a selected portion of the homeless, if that trhey could properly manage their money
a hand out to them would prove to advance their circumstance
that group positioned themselves for employment
hiopefully, the need for a handout will soon end
and that problem will be solved for said study cohort
If you were down on your luck, lost your job, your home, etc. would you turn down that money?
 
If you were down on your luck, lost your job, your home, etc. would you turn down that money?
help me out by identifying which people turn their backs on free money
 
help me out by identifying which people turn their backs on free money
You kept referring to the $ as a hand-out. So then yes, you would accept that handout?
 
And you're reading fiction into the study.
I'd ask "what you think you mean by that," but, honestly, I don't care about your "opinion".
 
You kept referring to the $ as a hand-out. So then yes, you would accept that handout?
what would would describe the monies given to the homeless study participants better than "handouts"?
 
what would would describe the monies given to the homeless study participants better than "handouts"?
You didnt answer my question. Would you accept that handout?
 
You didnt answer my question. Would you accept that handout?
you didn't answer my question, asking who do you know who turns their back on free money
 
you didn't answer my question, asking who do you know who turns their back on free money
Because you used that to avoid my question first.

Nevermind, I know the answer, since you are trying so hard to avoid answering. Yes, you would accept that "handout."
 
Because you used that to avoid my question first.

Nevermind, I know the answer, since you are trying so hard to avoid answering. Yes, you would accept that "handout."
you forgot to make a point by identifying who would turn their back on free money

thus far you have offered the equivalent of 'water is wet'
 
you forgot to make a point by identifying who would turn their back on free money

thus far you have offered the equivalent of 'water is wet'
I did answer it. I said you wouldnt.
 
“ You've heard this refrain before -- giving money to homeless people is not the best way to help them because it might be squandered, or spent on harmful habits. But a new Canadian study makes a powerful case to the contrary....

Researchers gave 50 recently homeless people a lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars (nearly $5,700). They followed the cash recipients' life over 12-18 months and compared their outcomes to that of a control group who didn't receive the payment.

The preliminary findings, which will be peer-reviewed next year, show that those who received cash were able to find stable housing faster, on average. By comparison, those who didn't receive cash lagged about 12 months behind in securing more permanent housing.

People who received cash were able to access the food they needed to live faster. Nearly 70% did after one month, and maintained greater food security throughout the year.

The recipients spent more on food, clothing and rent, while there was a 39% decrease in spending on goods like alcohol, cigarettes or illicit drugs...

...Participants were screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse....

"People very much know what they need, but we often don't equip them with the intervention or the services that really empowers them with choice and dignity to move forward on their own terms," Williams said.

Direct cash transfers are not "a silver bullet for homelessness in general," and the program focused on "a higher functioning subset of the homeless population," Williams said, but she believes the research shows that providing meaningful support to folks who have recently become homeless decreases the likelihood they will become entrenched in the experience....

The study shows there are advantages for the taxpayer, too.

According to the research, reducing the number of nights spent in shelters by the 50 study participants who received cash saved approximately 8,100 Canadian dollars per person per year, or about 405,000 Canadian dollars over one year for all 50 participants.

"There's a common misconception that the cost of doing nothing is free or cheap and it absolutely is not," Williams said...

Innovative solutions to the issue are even more pressing right now. Berg thinks the research confirms what is true for many people experiencing homelessness: money can solve it.

"There are certainly people who are homeless who have deeper, more severe problems," Berg explained, "but for many people, it's simply a matter of -- they ran out of money, lost a job, fell on hard times, became homeless. Once they're homeless, it's very difficult to get enough money saved up in order to find a place to live."

"People can be relied on, if they get the money upfront, to take care of the problem themselves," Berg added.”
I read that when it came out. The thing has more holes than Swiss Cheese does. Several parts of the story don't make any sense at all.
 
I read that when it came out. The thing has more holes than Swiss Cheese does. Several parts of the story don't make any sense at all.
I think so too, but it also is a reason for optimism about finding ways to make a limited portion of the homeless population back into productive members of society.
 
I think so too, but it also is a reason for optimism about finding ways to make a limited portion of the homeless population back into productive members of society.
It is not a good use of money to throw away 90% of that money to help 10% of the homeless population.
 
It is not a good use of money to throw away 90% of that money to help 10% of the homeless population.
the study observed that those homeless who received the money used it effectively, improving their prospects for work and self-sufficiency
but that is because they were evaluated to be the "cream" of the homeless population with the basic life skills to allocate their newfound income properly
now, the above is my take from what i read

your turn. share with us what happened to the 90% that you insisted was thrown away?
 
the study observed that those homeless who received the money used it effectively, improving their prospects for work and self-sufficiency
but that is because they were evaluated to be the "cream" of the homeless population with the basic life skills to allocate their newfound income properly
now, the above is my take from what i read

your turn. share with us what happened to the 90% that you insisted was thrown away?
I was responding to someone else's post who implied that since some homeless were helped, it was worth the money invested. My point was the other money was thrown away. The study was full of holes and didn't really make any sense if you really look at it closely.
 
Conservatives just cant get past the idea of helping the poor. They will fight any government help for the poor suggested.
 
A society that does not provide a safety net for those with the least so as to include them in living together amongst others in orderly community is not a society. Such includes health insurance for everyone as those without puts them in jeopardy of death, disease and other health challenge preventing their being productive members of society makes them among with the least.

....nor is it Christian ....
 
I was responding to someone else's post who implied that since some homeless were helped, it was worth the money invested. My point was the other money was thrown away. The study was full of holes and didn't really make any sense if you really look at it closely.
that synopis of the pilot program to fund designated homeless people who might use grants to advance their prospects to become self sufficient indicates the participants did use their funds as was hoped

the only thing full of holes is your argument against that program
and it makes a lot of sense to give the homeless who are financially prudent a financial hand up to achieve self sufficiency. then, they not only require no additional handouts, they become taxpayers who contribute to such programs
 
....nor is it Christian ....

Christian by what standard? Those that speak mostly of what is Christian? Do they follow the teaching of Christ? What does it matter if it is not Christian when Christians so follow? It is, in effect, the practice of Christians.
 
Back
Top Bottom