The new study, funded by the government and carried out by King’s College London (KCL) and the homelessness charity Greater Change, will recruit 360 people in England and Wales. Half will continue to get help from frontline charities. The other half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.

Professor Michael Sanders, who runs KCL’s experimental government unit, said: “What we’re trying to understand is the boundary conditions for cash transfers. When does it work? For whom does it work? What are the amounts you need to give people in order to make it work?”

One of the first cash transfer schemes was in Mexico in 1997 and since then they have been used around the world. But most evidence is from low and middle-income countries, and there has been opposition from politicians and the public, who often believe people will spend the money unwisely. Last year researchers in Canada found that giving CA$7,500 (£4,285) to 50 homeless people in Vancouver was more effective than spending money housing them in shelters, and saved around CA$777 (£443) per person.

  • Krauerking
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah I mean a couple people are gonna end up spending their money poorly. Probably use it for vanity projects like building rocket ships with their names on it and carving out mountains for “art” projects.

    See how the wealthy treat the planet it’s obvious that no one deserves it. Maybe we can ask people for what purpose they want to be alive first and give them just enough life to do that so they don’t get greedy.

    • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Most studies show that between 2-5% of any demographic misuses/abuses a system. Those are pretty low numbers in the big scheme of things.

      The problem is when we look at the flip side … 95-98% of people follow a system’s rules, yet almost every system we have chooses to police everyone like they’re part of the 2-5% … unless they’re rich. Then the rules change to their benefit (like a recent example in Canada’s Revenue Service for instance … https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-revenue-agency-bogus-tax-refunds-1.7366935)).