From the article: > The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period.

Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & genderqueer people, as well as those who are young+single parents or are disabled.

Find and read the actual full report for more details though.

>The program prioritized underrepresented populations.

Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless.

What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?

Queer people are at a greater risk of being estranged from their families, if nothing else.

I guess the flipside of this is, do we want poor/homeless people from groups our society dubs “overrepresented” to only be able to find help from organizations that specifically serve selected “overrepresented” groups? Are there no obvious bad sides to that?

Because you can’t really have the one without the other.

Aren't all homeless people estranged from families?

I assume family would help if it was a possibility.

Someone unable or unwilling to house a family member could be able and willing to pay their phone service. Someone unable to pay their phone service could be willing to talk to them.

Homeless young people are disproportionately LGBT because of family rejection.

If they have a family.

That's a gigantic, optimistic assumption.

Don't assume. Your life is nothing like theirs. You have no idea what it's like. I know some of them; I have no idea what they face on the daily.

Not fearing being kicked in the middle of the night while you sleep is part of the privilege that keeps you from understanding what they live in.

How is my assumption optimistic? I assumed all homeless people are estranged from families. That is a pessimistic assumption. It’s bad for everyone.

What are you meaning here?

Also, transgender people are more likely to experience violence on the streets.

They said parents received priority. Homeless people whose children live with them are women mostly. Giving parents priority aided their children.

The report said the programs prioritized groups that are overrepresented in national youth homelessness counts, including LGBTQ+ and BIPOC youth, as well as those who were pregnant or parenting status, formerly incarcerated, undocumented, or had a history of domestic violence or trafficking, populations that are continually overrepresented in national youth homelessness counts.[1] Underrepresented was the journalist's description seemingly.

Some dangers to homeless people are gender neutral. Some are not. Sexual assault is not. But the portions of the report I read did not say immediate danger was considered.

Being transgender is a more polite way to describe being transgender.

[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60418acae851e139836c6...

transgenderism is not a thing. transgender people are real, however.

trans people are at greater risk of violence and sexual assault (sometimes because sex work is the only way for them to survive). being arrested as a trans woman could mean being placed in a jail/prison with cis men, again, putting them at greater risk of violence and sexual assault.

Probably because homeless women are more likely than homeless men to access social services, which means they're where the program directors can find them?

it’s a youth program ran by a youth organization. Young people dealing with family problems due to gender identity, sexuality etc. are a very large portion of homeless youth. I would guess transgender people are underrepresented at just 18%.

This program specifically targeted homeless youth; it seems plausible that the demographics of that segment might differ from the larger community.

This makes sense, targeting youth likely has a higher chance of a better outcome?

From my experiences, it does have a higher chance of better outcome, as homeless youth are usually homeless because of some family issue and not because they are unable to hold down a job as a result of drug abuse or being homeless.

Yup. And the longer they’re homeless the higher the likelihood that they do develop health or drug problems and shift from being relatively easy to relatively difficult to get back on their feet.

Plus, homeless youth can include kids as young as 14 or 15, who are especially vulnerable to predators on the street.

There are reasons targeting youth could be more effective. But a more direct reason this project targeted youth was Oregon's homeless youth program designed it.

True, but most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse, so giving them money doesn't address the cause of their homelessness in any way.

The targeted populations were primarily homeless for economic reasons, so the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the simplest/most efficient solution was just to give them some money.

> most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse

Do you have a citation for this?

You're welcome to walk yourself down to Skid Row or your nearest homeless camp and conduct a detailed survey if you want the specifics. Or, a simple Google search will provide several studies including demographic details.

> You're welcome to walk yourself down to Skid Row or your nearest homeless camp and conduct a detailed survey if you want the specifics.

What country is the subject of this discussion? I assumed the US because the article was about Oregon. Most homeless people in the US do not live in camps.[1]

> Or, a simple Google search will provide several studies including demographic details.

Simple searches found researchers couldn't agree how many homeless people used drugs. Never mind abused. Never mind abused before becoming homeless. Never mind became homeless because they abused drugs.

Simple searches found citations for the claim substance abused caused most homelessness failed to support the claim. A survey cited frequently asked mayors what they thought were the top causes of homelessness in their cities.

Simple searches found studies which said homelessness was economic primarily.

[1] https://aibm.org/research/homelessness-in-the-united-states/

There are two very different types of homeless. The invisible homeless are the ones who are homeless for economic reasons; they live in RVs, cars, or shelters and generally try to hide their homelessness. They rarely use drugs or alcohol.

The visible homeless are heavy drug users. In LA, over 90% of the visible homeless are drug addicts. The same is true in San Diego and the SF Bay Area. In LA, LAHSA likes to goose the statistics to to include the economic homeless, but the economic homeless don't use LAHSA's services because LAHSA exclusively services the drug users (because their funding is based on long term placements, which the economic homeless do not need).

Your comparing statistics for homeless adults to homeless youth.

From my experience being a homeless youth 20 years ago, LGBTQ individuals make up a large share of homeless youth, I would guess more than 50% at the time.

There may be less gay or lesbian homeless youth these days, but transgender youth may have grown.

Something noone else has said here, and I don't know the degree to which it is true for this study, but good study design generally includes stratified sampling.

e.g. if there are subpopulations whose experience differs a lot, you want to have those populations overrepresented in your study to reduce variance of study.

This is basic statistics.

It was a small pilot (120 people) -- given the number of homeless in Portland alone, it wouldn't be difficult to find 60 who were women even if women make up a smallish percentage of overall homeless.