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.
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
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.
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.
the study you mentioned, but refused to link to, or quote, agrees with me and not yourself, I quote:
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
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.
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.
Well yes, that much I do agree with.