Doc, Homless in LA

[Guest]

I have already given him the study,that showed at 62%...and I have shown how the HUD study is skewed.

Link?

Here is your chance to be more than a clone. I am going to ask Glad to hold off and let you answer this, being that you know all the data.

Markk, maybe you're confusing me with someone else. Where have I said I know all of the data? Or even any of the data? This subject isn't really within my field of expertise.

Unless I'm wrong, my participation on this thread has been pretty much limited to trying to follow the discussion. In order to do this, I've asked for a clarification of your writing a few times and issued a challenge for you to prove something using so-called 'studies.'

Your argument has been that anything can be proven with studies. Moreover, you've claimed to have demonstrated your argument using the data in these studies. I'm following this thread and not seeing it. Perhaps you'll show me where I missed it.



edit: repaired my prose

[_Morley]

Who is everybody?

Clarification: Everyone who is arguing against you. I though that was understood. Apologies.

[_EAllusion]

Markk -

Can you explain the methodology behind the mental illness stat? I ask because mental illness is very common in the population in general. Further, mental illness is defined in terms of its impact on people's functioning and if you are homeless that's a good data point suggesting the potential for significant impact on functioning. And on top of that, being homeless is difficult enough that being homeless should predispose people to be mentally ill. It'd be shocking if depression rates weren't higher among the homeless, for instance. Yet, your number cites only 25%. That's not as bad as you'd think it could be. How is mental illness defined in that statistic and how did they go about measuring it?

[_Morley]

Omg, you are adding those numbers together as if they are mutually exclusive.

Ah, that's where he's getting 62%! Thank you.

[_Gadianton]

I have already given him the study,that showed at 62%...and I have shown how the HUD study is skewed.

No you didn't and no you didn't. Please re-post the "62%" link. And the data I'm posting isn't from HUD, it's from the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority. It's census data. Do you know what a census is? It's better than an i-phone, and better than a streetcam for estimating a population and its demographics.

26% are addicted to other substances

That is twenty-six, Markk, not Sixty-two. And I have no problem with that number but for the second or third time note that:

"https://losangeles.urbdezine.com/2015/1 ... -homeless/"

Your article is from 2015, and the most recent data that would best reflect the world you drive through with your i-phone is the 2017 data, which is 16% for that category.

[_Markk]

Markk -

Can you explain the methodology behind the mental illness stat? I ask because mental illness is very common in the population in general. Further, mental illness is defined in terms of its impact on people's functioning and if you are homeless that's a good data point suggesting the potential for significant impact on functioning. And on top of that, being homeless is difficult enough that being homeless should predispose people to be mentally ill. It'd be shocking if depression rates weren't higher among the homeless, for instance. Yet, your number cites only 25%. That's not as bad as you'd think it could be. How is mental illness defined in that statistic and how did they go about measuring it?

I have no idea, nor does Morley or Glad in their studies, that's my point and Morleys jab at me. One can make any study read just about anyway one wants, similar to political polls. Especially when budget and grant monies are on the line. It is not "my number"...it is a number that seems more realistic to me by experience and observation...but no one really knows for sure...there are too many varibles.

I believe SUD, AUD, and MI... are very high. Which of course was my point in the very beginning.

Do you believe only 16 % of the homeless in LA are SUD...which may or may not include AUD in the HUD study......being hypocritical here , but "P-hacking" is a interesting "study."

You wrote in one of your first posts on this topic..."The three big causes of persistent homelessness are domestic violence, drug/alcohol addiction, and pervasive, long-term mental illness that causes disability." Which I agree with. And in my years of ministry with the homeless that is undeniable in my experience. I would add, and maybe there is a word for it, but all the above raising kids into the cycle, kids that do not have much of a chance as they grow older, having a small moral compass and no guidance..

I would also add that drug abuse and alcohol abuse causes much of the mental illness, so putting that all together ...good luck.

Bottom line there is no way SUD (whatever that includes or actually means by the study makers) is not just 16% of the LA homeless population.

[Guest]

I have already given him the study,that showed at 62%...and I have shown how the HUD study is skewed.

No you didn't and no you didn't. Please re-post the "62%" link. And the data I'm posting isn't from HUD, it's from the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority. It's census data. Do you know what a census is? It's better than an i-phone, and better than a streetcam for estimating a population and its demographics.

26% are addicted to other substances

That is twenty-six, Markk, not Sixty-two. And I have no problem with that number but for the second or third time note that:

"https://losangeles.urbdezine.com/2015/1 ... -homeless/"

Your article is from 2015, and the most recent data that would best reflect the world you drive through with your i-phone is the 2017 data, which is 16% for that category.

Just so I know, are you stating the HUDLAHSA study forgot or did not think it important to mention alcoholism among the homeless? They add transgenders, brain injury, and aids/HIV...but did not mention maybe the most common sickness for the homeless?

https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=1353 ... esults.pdf

What does the 16% include? What was the criteria used, and what does SUD encompass?

I was reading through HUD/SAMSHA material, and why I screwed that up, and it stated that SUD might only mean people receiving clinical treatment from SUD...or not...it is wide open. Also...LAHSA receives monies from HUD, and has to follow certain HUD protocol.

[_Gadianton]

It is not "my number"...it is a number that seems more realistic to me by experience and observation

OMFG. Thinking about making this a sig line.

The three big causes of persistent homelessness are domestic violence, drug/alcohol addiction, and pervasive, long-term mental illness that causes disability

.

29% (2017) were "chronically homeless" and 30% suffer from serious mental illness. We aren't given the makeup of the chronic stat, but it's consistent with EAs statement. If chronic homelessness was 85% then we'd question EA's statement.

I would add, and maybe there is a word for it, but all the above raising kids into the cycle, kids that do not have much of a chance as they grow older, having a small moral compass and no guidance..

Markk's Christian fantasy again. In 2017, 29% of the chronically homeless population were single -- out there alone. 1% of the chronically homeless population were in families that were homeless. sure, those with serious long-term mental illness are out there with their kids in droves, teaching them to continue the cycle of homelessness.

[_Markk]

It is not "my number"...it is a number that seems more realistic to me by experience and observation

OMFG. Thinking about making this a sig line.

The three big causes of persistent homelessness are domestic violence, drug/alcohol addiction, and pervasive, long-term mental illness that causes disability

.

29% (2017) were "chronically homeless" and 30% suffer from serious mental illness. We aren't given the makeup of the chronic stat, but it's consistent with EAs statement. If chronic homelessness was 85% then we'd question EAllusion's statement.

I would add, and maybe there is a word for it, but all the above raising kids into the cycle, kids that do not have much of a chance as they grow older, having a small moral compass and no guidance..

Markk's Christian fantasy again. In 2017, 29% of the chronically homeless population were single -- out there alone. 1% of the chronically homeless population were in families that were homeless. sure, those with serious long-term mental illness are out there with their kids in droves, teaching them to continue the cycle of homelessness.

What criteria was used in your study? Are you sure you wern't given the make up of the stat?

[_Markk]

Markk's Christian fantasy again. In 2017, 29% of the chronically homeless population were single -- out there alone. 1% of the chronically homeless population were in families that were homeless. sure, those with serious long-term mental illness are out there with their kids in droves, teaching them to continue the cycle of homelessness.

LOL...God card again.

But it is funny how you twist things...drug addicts raise kids, alcoholics raise kids, and mentally ill or mentally challenged folks raise kids... and when they are on and off the streets... bouncing around, and these kids have no support...chances are higher they will become homeless in their lives or worse (prison). But your study does not touch on those things. Maybe that should be part of the criteria on your list.

The kids are the ones that break your heart, knowing they might not hve a very good chance in the future...and I think EA might even agree with me on that.