Slashdot Mirror
A Bit of Cash Can Keep Someone Off the Streets For 2 Years or More (sciencemag.org)
An anonymous reader writes: If someone is about to become homeless, giving them a single cash infusion, averaging about $1000, may be enough to keep them off the streets for at least 2 years. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that programs that proactively assist those in need don't just help the victims -- they may benefit society as a whole. "I think this is a really important study, and it's really well done," says Beth Shinn, a community psychologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who specializes in homelessness but was not involved in the work. Homelessness isn't just bad for its sufferers -- it shortens life span and hurts kids in school -- it's a burden on everyone else. Previous studies have concluded that a single period of homelessness can cost taxpayers $20,000 or more, in the form of welfare, policing, health care, maintaining homeless shelters, and other expenses. To combat homelessness, philanthropic organizations have either tried to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place or help them regain housing after they are already destitute. But there aren't many data on whether giving cash to people on the brink of becoming homeless actually prevents them from living on the street.
The study showed something much more specific than the summary mentions, and sometimes the opposite of what the headlines indicates.
Quoting the article, good outcomes were likely when :
--
giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income
--
Not so effective, the study found, was giving cash to people carelessly. If someone was broke last year, and the year before, and they were broke last month, they'll probably be broke again next month.
Personal experience helping ex-cons, alcoholics, and drug addicts is that *most* people will continue doing what they've been doing, and continue getting the same results. The trick is to find the ~5% who are doing something different, so they'll get different results, and help them.
In the area where I work, there are quite a few homeless people. I've seen one guy out here for 9 years now. He isn't homeless because of some financial disaster. He is homeless because he clearly has a disease of the brain. He spends quite a lot of his time locked in combat with somebody in the sky. I don't think giving him $1,000 or $1,000,000 would keep him off the streets for long, if at all. What he really needs to get him indoors is treatment for his disease, but as is the case with many people with his type of affliction, he'll probably be back out here sooner or later.
"Homelessness" isn't always somebody without a home who wants one. It's a problem you can't just throw money at to make it go away. You can't just give all of these people jobs and consider the problem solved. It needs to be treated as a symptom of a disease, and one that usually cannot be permanently cured. Even if you could cure it, they are still human beings who deserve to have their wishes respected, and if they refuse treatment you cannot just force it upon them. Some people make the choice to live out there, because it's easier to cope with their disease this way. The next time you see a homeless person, please don't look down on them like some dirty bum pushing a stolen cart full of blankets and trash; they're probably suffering far more than you'll ever know, and it's most likely not at all their fault that they're in that state.
This would require a ~50% increase in federal spending. America has tried many tax structures over the years, but nothing has ever sustained government revenue over 20% of GDP. We're currently spending 18% of GDP. There's no evidence that it's possible under any tax program to get revenue anywhere near that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The best way to get money for booze, smokes, or drugs is to "claim hunger". I have seen it far too often.
This is why I will always offer food, but not CASH. I am not being evil, but careful.
I should have said most of the time instead of 9 out of 10. That was a poor choice of words.
My information comes from my own experience and from a non-profit group that focused on helping people on the street, with years of experience doing so.
I am a green card holder and have been living here for almost 17 years, I pay same taxes as you, I pay in to SSI and I contribute a hell of a lot of money to the economy. I should just suck it up and naturalize, it is not like I cannot keep my current citizenship in addition to obtaining US. The difference between citizenship and permanent residence is that you have taxation with representation, I however do not, but it is within my power to resolve that.
Tes
How do permanent residents not have a buy in? We are not H1B's. I pay the same taxes as you, I pay in to SSI, I contribute to all local, state and federal taxes. I own a house here with my wife (who was born in the USA) and child. I own two cars. I hunt. I support local wildlife habitats. I am paying in to a 401K and IRA in addition to personal investments. I pay for goods and services here. I plan to retire here, I have just not gotten around to naturalizing. How is that not buying in?
Citizenship is not some automagical status that makes you a productive member of society; it yields you some additional advantages that permanent residents do not get (yet we pay for it too :)) Being a citizen does not imply you can never take your crap and go elsewhere, US citizens do it all the time, they live aboard, they give up their citizenship and just like citizens if I decide to move back to my country of birth I still have to file US income tax statements even if I have not earned in the fiscal year inside US borders of protectorates, the only way around that is renouncing my permanent residence just like a citizen would have to.
Welcome to the wonderful world of arbitrary designations :)
RE: "giving one-time cash quantities to people on the brink of homelessness who can demonstrate that they will be able to pay rent by themselves in the future, but who have been afflicted by some nonrecurring crisis, such as a medical bill. Recipients need to be able to demonstrate consistent future income."
Well that's quite a different scenario! And that makes sense. As usual, the article did not mention that.
Seems like almost every "news" source these days tells only half the truth.
It's literally a quote FROM THE FUCKING ARTICLE, and the post you replied to specifically said it was from the article. You didn't read the article or the post (or at least didn't comprehend them) then you bitch about the media not keeping you informed. If you want to see who is keeping you uninformed, look in a mirror.
Enigma
Automatic elevators, which permanently destroyed the job where a person is inside the elevator and pushing a lever to make it go up or down.
No replacement job here, since any new repair work necessary for an elevator would now be rolled into the existing elevator technician job.
I've voted in Swedish elections several times as a permanent resident.
You also might be interested to know that you do not have to become a US citizen to serve in the US armed forces--permanent residents of the US are also eligible.
I'd suggest you lose your love of circular logic first, though.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.