West Coast baby

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    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.

    • Mchugho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe you’ve misinterpreted their findings completely. They’re saying those who start in temporary supported housing have better attainment, which Is exactly what I was saying. Just giving people keys and wishing them luck results in worse outcomes, they need halfway homes to acclimate to independent living first. People need support as well which is the entire frickin point of the conversation you muppet

      Smh.

      Also, I’m not your personal googler. If you want to know if there are studies look for them mate. People just think saying “source?” is enough to win an argument

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        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.

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

          It massively depends on the individual in question. Note that I NEVER said that a house and leg up wasn’t all that some need. In fact in the majority of cases that’s fine, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are some who just throw all the help in the world back in the face of those that try and help.