(Devils advocate bc I don’t actually believe this but think it illustrates an important point):
Why don’t we just give them money? Because, ultimately, housing need is there largely because they can’t afford housing right? So the deeper cause is a financial one.
I suspect most people exist be onboard with this because they know it won’t solve the underlying problems. It’s also the same with simply giving “free” housing.
Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount and should be their priority. Getting sidetracked by proximate causes is a good way to squander resources that can also tend to make things worse.
> Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount
I think that over-simplifies this type of wicked problem where consequences become causes. For example, poverty and under-housing causes abusive childhoods, mental health and substance use issues.
The challenge is not to identify a leaky pipe to stop a flood but to intervene in a complex dynamical system and convert doom cycles into virtuous upward spirals of improvement.
I'm familiar with GiveDirectly. It seems like a good organization on the whole, but I've only seen a few studies related to it and (due to modifications in evaluation criteria) it's no longer recommended by GiveWell.
>I think that over-simplifies this type of wicked problem
I disagree. It's acknowledging it's a very complicated problem. As such, we shouldn't get fooled by thinking that if we just focus on this aspect (housing), it will lead to a sustainable solution. You may have to address proximate causes, but you absolutely have to focus on the root cause if you want to make a lasting improvement. Otherwise, it is likely to just turn into a bottomless pit to dump resources. This is like practically any other complex system that needs improvement. There are rarely simple "hacks" to solve the problem, and they take an understanding of the entire system dynamics. But that's not to say the focus shouldn't still be on the root cause.
One benefit of meeting basic needs (like housing, food, utilities) directly is that it's easier for the people who need it. Some others here have pointed out that many homeless people have something that keeps them from managing a household, and taking as much of that off their shoulders is helpful in that it allows them to build a life step-by-step, for example by focusing on mental and physical health first and at some point education, instead of having to adjust to a lot of stuff at once.
Also, yeah, addictions are a thing. And I don't mean that as in "Oh, those people are so irresponsible! We can't trust them to spend their money right!". Addiction fucks you up (and/or is a result of the world fucking you up), and if what has been your only way to feel not-completely-terrible for a while is the other option, I don't think I can personally blame anyone who isn't able to take steps along a long and difficult road with uncertain outcomes, with their basic needs still not met.
In short: Money is a tool that can be used to meet basic needs, but by itself it does not meet basic needs. Using it to do that is not easy, especially if you're not used to that, and double-especially if you're addicted to something as a result of your shitty living conditions.
(I should note that I'm _not_ speaking from experience here. If someone who has some, ideally someone who has second-hand experience with many people, please correct me!)
Why don’t we just give them money? Because, ultimately, housing need is there largely because they can’t afford housing right? So the deeper cause is a financial one.
I suspect most people exist be onboard with this because they know it won’t solve the underlying problems. It’s also the same with simply giving “free” housing.
Most people who deal in processes understand treating the root cause it paramount and should be their priority. Getting sidetracked by proximate causes is a good way to squander resources that can also tend to make things worse.