West Coast baby

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    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@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        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@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.