The concept of providing direct financial aid to alleviate homelessness has gathered support. This is fueled by evidence from several pilot studies in urban areas, including Los Angeles.
Research indicates that direct cash transfers of $750 to $1,000 monthly could enable numerous homeless individuals to secure informal housing arrangements.
Beneficiaries may utilize such funds to rent spaces in shared living environments or with family, thereby reducing the numbers on the streets.
Experts from diverse fields in Los Angeles suggest that for some homeless populations, economic factors are the primary barrier to housing.
They propose that direct financial support could serve as a pragmatic solution for those who have faced homelessness due to financial difficulties.
According to a professor from UCLA, the quickest way to address street homelessness is through provision of financial assistance.
This circumvents the complexity of existing systems designed for individuals with severe disabilities.
One concern addressed is the funding and allocation of these direct payments. But the discussion emphasizes the merit of basic income over the inefficient allocation of resources in current housing programs.
Additionally, the use of informal housing as an option is outlined, highlighting its prevalence and potential as an untapped resource for affordable accommodations.
Informal housing includes shared arrangements and units not fully meeting formal market standards but has been a practical solution for many looking for affordable living spaces.
The work of a community psychologist at UCLA, and the founder of a successful Housing First program in New York, reiterates that direct financial aid would suit those with greater self-reliance. They also emphasize that it is not meant as a replacement for comprehensive Housing First efforts.
Referencing the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative, more than half of those without homes may be sufficiently served by informal housing markets instead of traditional housing.
A study by the Urban Institute reviewed guaranteed income programs in various cities and noted the advantages, including flexibility, cost-effectiveness, dignity for the recipients, and absence of discrimination from landlords.
Preliminary findings from a controlled study of a cash stipend by a director at USC points to beneficial spending patterns by homeless individuals. This challenges the stigma surrounding the direct provision of cash to those in need.
Economic research indicates that homelessness is heavily influenced by income disparities. Along with lack of affordable housing, boosting base income levels with direct financial support is viewed as a vital component in the fight against homelessness.
Though the paper does not propose a specific administrative framework, it hints at increasing General Relief grants as a practical step toward implementing basic income for the destitute.
Finally, it addresses potential criticism regarding the promotion of substandard housing.
It contends that such informal housing is likely to match or exceed the quality of accommodations that the recipients used prior to becoming homeless.
It firmly states that many individuals currently homeless or in temporary encampments do not require, nor qualify for, intensive supportive housing, making case for the necessity of alternative solutions, such as basic income.