6 ms·

A Canadian study gave $7,500 to homeless people. Here’s how they spent it

45 points by laurex 3y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> Not everyone was eligible for a cash transfer, however. The study only enrolled participants who’d been homeless for under two years, with the idea that early intervention most effectively reduces the risk of people incurring trauma as a result of living without a home. And people with severe mental health or substance use issues were screened out of the initiative. Williams said this was not out of a belief that there are “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” — a woefully persistent frame on poverty — but out of a desire to avoid creating a risk of harm and to ensure the highest likelihood of success. Also, not mentioned is if the control group individuals also would have been eligible for the cash transfer.
- coffeecheque 3y ago
  The study paper is linked and seems to say there were 115 participants identified and then assigned into various groups. Table 1 shows the differences in the cash and non cash group. So the control group met the same conditions - they just missed out via randomisation. “We screened 732 participants from 22 shelters from four shelter organizations across Metro Vancouver. Our preregistered screening criteria were: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 y (homelessness defined as the lack of stable housing), Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10) (21), alcohol use (AUDIT) (22), and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) (23) based on predefined thresholds (see SI Appendix, Table S1 in SI Appendix, section 1.3.2). These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer. To ensure accurate responses, the screening survey was conducted under a cover story without any mention of the cash transfer. Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%). Due to loss of contact with 114 participants despite our repeated attempts to reach them, we successfully enrolled 115 participants in the study as the final sample (50 cash, 65 noncash; see Table 1). The sample size was modest but was nonetheless adequately powered to detect statistically significant effects from the preregistered power analysis”
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    The researchers are basically telling you that they initially pruned out 70% of the homeless population for being "unqualified" and then half of the remaining 30% because they were unable or unwilling to maintain contact with a new person in their life. Therefore, only the top 15% of homeless people, in terms of responsibility, are even included in the study, and the other 85% are discarded. This was interesting near the end... while the cash provided immediate benefits, control participants eventually “caught up” over time. This is consistent with prior work In my opinion, if the $7500 was truly a game-changer, it would have immediate effect that would accelerate a person's re-introduction to stable society and therefore have multiplicative effects further down the road as they leveraged stable housing, clothing and food to get a job, perhaps attract a partner, etc. The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic.
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      > The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic. The control recipients still received benefits designed to help the homeless so it isn't surprising that they also improved. What is exciting is that the cash: 1) gave much more immediate results, therefore reducing suffering 2) generated net savings via reduced social service use So we have a method that is better and cheaper for a screen-able subset of the homeless population, it might not be a "game changer" but its an improvement over the status quo worth exploring further.
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        It isn't that the control group "improved," it's that they entirely caught up. The immediate cash did not have long-term (and we're only defining "long-term" as a few months) benefits when compared to the non-cash recipients. Further, this isn't an anomaly, it is consistent with prior work. And again, the study ignores 85% of the homeless population, you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population. Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.
egberts1 3y ago
Once you include the screened-out sample of mental illness, it would be better for the whole society to have government provide this basic shelter for the homeless along with reduce basic income than to give outright basic income. Otherwise, our housing market will take on the extra (hit) economic dynamism for the rest of us (ranging from worker class to middle-class).
- rthomas6 3y ago
  It's almost like, having a true fixed supply, land is a separate class of economic good and shouldn't be seen the same way as everything else. Georgism ftw
- demandingturtle 3y ago
  [dead]
beardyw 3y ago
It turns out homeless people are just like you and me. Who knew?
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > according to self-reports A similar study would conclude that everyone in prison is innocent and few obese people over eat.
  - CP3f6kMA 3y ago
    Source?
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      [flagged]
- pauldenton 3y ago
  Just like you and me. After heavy Screening
- 40yearoldman 3y ago
  Minus the ones the screened out? Homeless is such a broad term. It includes people that most people don’t even know exist. When people say homeless they are referring to the visible ones on the street. Most studies and statistics like to use the ones who are homeless on paper. They are the ones who don’t have place to live other than publicly provided facilities. There are entire apartments of people you would otherwise not know are “homeless”, simply because they are not the one paying for their own room and board. We need a new term. Something to call the people that when somebody says homeless, we invasion in our head. Homeless is to broad. Nobody thinks you are differently because you got kicked out of your apartment or lost a job and fell behind on mortgage. In the other hand. The people clogging intersections. Spitting on others, taking shots in public, doing drugs and fuxking on the street, nobody thinks and no study shows 7500 would do anything other than make it worse. Ans that is why this study excluded these people from the study.
theGeatZhopa 3y ago
I think there are several Differentiations that need to be talked about. For me, living in in Germany, actually, it's pretty difficult to become homeless. One needs to want to be homeless, to become a true homeless. As in general, we have a social net in here. Each one can apply to get Burgergeld (Money for citizens). We're paying the rent and the costs for heating and so on.. so, a homeless is a homeless, because of pride or other reasons. If it happens that one loses his job, can't pay the bills and the monthly rent - one can apply for the money. Also, there are shelters and food stations for the homeless.. so, actually, If you don't want to be homeless, you'll get the help. On the other side, we still have homeless living on the street. Being ill and dirty. I talked to some random guy, he told me, that he actually want to live on the street. Another guy hast some mental problems and can't use money. In the end he spends all the money for weed and alcohol in the first two days after receiving. So, we have homeless who went homeless because of the personal life situations. This guys should get all the money they need to build a new life. All the others should get material help, like place to live, educational things and so on... Yes, it's cruel to say "you get money, you not" - but I don't see a way for the one's who don't want help, that they actually can pull themselves up
- CSSer 3y ago
  Although it’s fair to say our social net needs patching, I find it interesting that I’ve made similar observations in some places here in the United States, especially in places with robust assistance. You might find our history on mental institutions interesting if you’re unfamiliar. They were billed as a solution to the group you describe, and they were initially very popular and widely supported politically. Unfortunately, most people know the rest of the story. The system was rife with abuse and cruelty. I think it left a terrible mark on the idea that we could help such people effectively.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    > The system was rife with abuse and cruelty. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the institutions were the source of abuse and cruelty, and that if we could only separate the providers and treatments from the institutions, then we would be magically wonderfully free of future abuse and cruelty. Is it any wonder that that hasn't exactly panned out? Now our mental institutions are simply borderless and invisible. There's nothing new under the sun.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I was homeless and on the streets between 1997-2003, although not continuously. Early in that period, I mismanaged my funds such that I bounced several checks, my bank closed my checking account, and they filed a report with ChexSystems to ensure that no bank would ever give me an account again, or at least that's what their letter told me. So I endured several long years without hope of having a bank account. That's surely one major issue for the homeless population. Nowadays you've got to wonder how they access any bank account they might have, with all the mandatory MFA and dwindling number of branches. I was friends with a lot of people on the streets, and money was a big issue for sure. It was spent on cigarettes and liquor, and if you could save up enough to get a motel for a few days, you definitely went for it, so you'd have a shower and a good night's sleep, but of course a motel is far more expensive than any other housing. We were friends with a couple, G & E, and E was confined to a wheelchair. He had been a skilled welder. G & E usually had housing, but they also had a peculiar syndrome of being robbed quite often. People would somehow break into their home and steal their trading cards, jewelry, and other valuables. These thieves may even have the correct key to their door. There was apparently nothing the landlord or law enforcement could do, so G & E had to keep purchasing stuff they wanted to replace what was stolen. G & E were also SNAP recipients, but E refused to eat anything but beef, so he'd splurge on big steaks at the grocery store, to the detriment of everything else. They'd also beg a meal off my friend while we were downtown, so she'd get a burger or two for them. They were always begging and busking and panhandling; never enough money. I know another fellow who has a home, and a car too, I think, and is on a few federal benefit programs, yet every time he's at church, he hits us up for cash. He knows some of these folks are well-heeled and they're good for a $20 bill or so. It seems that he asks at least once of every new friend he makes. In my own personal experience, I had an adulthood full of mismanaging finances and bills. I made a ridiculous salary but I ate Burger King and lived in a slum, so I could make ends meet. But eventually that lifestyle caught up with me. Then, I learned how to get by with no money, no income at all. As I gradually gained back an income, I still had big urges to spend every penny and I ran out every month. But I made sure not to go into debt and not to be overdrawn. Eventually that discipline of running out to $0 every month became something like a budget, and I began to realize that if I were frugal, and didn't splurge on luxuries, I really could make it through the month. Now that I am employed, I do manage to keep a positive balance in the bank, I pay off a small credit card, and I'm comfortable, but it took a lot of effort and a lot of pain for me to get here.
028 3y ago
[flagged]
hresvelgr 3y ago
It's almost as if respecting people's agency and trusting them proves to be the best cause of action. There's always going to be a minority who won't help themselves but the vast majority of people want help and are trying to help themselves.
- mortureb 3y ago
  [flagged]
- demandingturtle 3y ago
  [dead]
nn3 3y ago
"And people with severe mental health or substance use issues were screened out of the initiative" Just to keep in mind. I assume that's only some (small?) fraction of the homeless.
- nervousvarun 3y ago
  Not sure about Canada but in the U.S. it's 30%. Just curious as it's seems contrary to the prevailing narrative out there...why would you assume it's a small fraction? https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaign...
  - blanketcitrus 3y ago
    Because normal people don't end up sleeping in the streets - even poor people.
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      The people "sleeping on the streets" represent a small fraction of the homeless population. A big chunk (~40% in CA) live in their cars, and the majority are sleeping in shelters (~66% nationwide, which must be lower in CA).
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Experiences
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    I find 30% quite low unless you count the ones that are purely economic and typically are doing things like sleeping in their car or other such things that aren't the typical picture of homelessness. Technically, I was "homeless" for 7 months in my life--but it was a planned thing, at no point did I ever not have a roof at night, but a few of those nights it was a tent roof.
- 3y ago
glonq 3y ago
It's it honest or ethical to say that the money was given to "homeless" people if only a small fraction qualified? It's like saying that I studied exercise in "men" but then only accepted people aged 25-29 who were above-average height and non-obese. Saying that I helped "men" doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, it misleads.
demandingturtle 3y ago
[dead]
black_13 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
10g1k 3y ago
How much did it cost per recipient? When there's a middle man between source and destination (e.g. government), that middle man absorbs cost. Source: tax-payers. Middle man: government. Destination: Some subset of the population selected by the government. I know this was organised by some charity, but when the government is involved, usually that middle mad is incredibly inefficient, and just wastes money all over the place. So the output from the source might be $100. The middle man will spend $40 just to pay for itself, and lose another $30 just by being government. The remainder will go to the subset selected by the middle man. Over a population and repeated cycles, the source runs out of money, the government increases its requirements and losses, and in the end there's nothing left for the selected recipients.
anomaloustho 3y ago
I’m having trouble determining the effectiveness here. The article repeatedly uses the phrase, “no increased spending on temptation goods”. I’m reading that as, “If the person had an addiction to meth, they still spent the same amount on meth, but they did it from the comfort of a new couch, in new clothes, in a new apartment. Sometimes they spent less on meth.” Is that a fair interpretation? Also, how do they know the person is spending money on temptation goods or not? Self-reported?

45 points by laurex 3y ago

> Not everyone was eligible for a cash transfer, however. The study only enrolled participants who’d been homeless for under two years, with the idea that early intervention most effectively reduces the risk of people incurring trauma as a result of living without a home. And people with severe mental health or substance use issues were screened out of the initiative. Williams said this was not out of a belief that there are “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” — a woefully persistent frame on poverty — but out of a desire to avoid creating a risk of harm and to ensure the highest likelihood of success. Also, not mentioned is if the control group individuals also would have been eligible for the cash transfer.

coffeecheque 3y ago
The study paper is linked and seems to say there were 115 participants identified and then assigned into various groups. Table 1 shows the differences in the cash and non cash group. So the control group met the same conditions - they just missed out via randomisation. “We screened 732 participants from 22 shelters from four shelter organizations across Metro Vancouver. Our preregistered screening criteria were: age 19 to 65, homeless for less than 2 y (homelessness defined as the lack of stable housing), Canadian citizen or permanent resident, and nonsevere levels of substance use (DAST-10) (21), alcohol use (AUDIT) (22), and mental health symptoms Colorado Symptom Index (CSI) (23) based on predefined thresholds (see SI Appendix, Table S1 in SI Appendix, section 1.3.2). These screening criteria were used to reduce any potential risks of harm (e.g., overdose) from the cash transfer. To ensure accurate responses, the screening survey was conducted under a cover story without any mention of the cash transfer. Of the 732 participants, 229 passed all criteria (31%). Due to loss of contact with 114 participants despite our repeated attempts to reach them, we successfully enrolled 115 participants in the study as the final sample (50 cash, 65 noncash; see Table 1). The sample size was modest but was nonetheless adequately powered to detect statistically significant effects from the preregistered power analysis”
- listenallyall 3y ago
  The researchers are basically telling you that they initially pruned out 70% of the homeless population for being "unqualified" and then half of the remaining 30% because they were unable or unwilling to maintain contact with a new person in their life. Therefore, only the top 15% of homeless people, in terms of responsibility, are even included in the study, and the other 85% are discarded. This was interesting near the end... while the cash provided immediate benefits, control participants eventually “caught up” over time. This is consistent with prior work In my opinion, if the $7500 was truly a game-changer, it would have immediate effect that would accelerate a person's re-introduction to stable society and therefore have multiplicative effects further down the road as they leveraged stable housing, clothing and food to get a job, perhaps attract a partner, etc. The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    > The fact that the non-cash recipients "caught up" suggests the exact opposite, seems a bit problematic. The control recipients still received benefits designed to help the homeless so it isn't surprising that they also improved. What is exciting is that the cash: 1) gave much more immediate results, therefore reducing suffering 2) generated net savings via reduced social service use So we have a method that is better and cheaper for a screen-able subset of the homeless population, it might not be a "game changer" but its an improvement over the status quo worth exploring further.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      It isn't that the control group "improved," it's that they entirely caught up. The immediate cash did not have long-term (and we're only defining "long-term" as a few months) benefits when compared to the non-cash recipients. Further, this isn't an anomaly, it is consistent with prior work. And again, the study ignores 85% of the homeless population, you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population. Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.

egberts1 3y ago

Once you include the screened-out sample of mental illness, it would be better for the whole society to have government provide this basic shelter for the homeless along with reduce basic income than to give outright basic income. Otherwise, our housing market will take on the extra (hit) economic dynamism for the rest of us (ranging from worker class to middle-class).

rthomas6 3y ago
It's almost like, having a true fixed supply, land is a separate class of economic good and shouldn't be seen the same way as everything else. Georgism ftw
demandingturtle 3y ago
[dead]

beardyw 3y ago

It turns out homeless people are just like you and me. Who knew?

willcipriano 3y ago
> according to self-reports A similar study would conclude that everyone in prison is innocent and few obese people over eat.
- CP3f6kMA 3y ago
  Source?
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    [flagged]
pauldenton 3y ago
Just like you and me. After heavy Screening
40yearoldman 3y ago
Minus the ones the screened out? Homeless is such a broad term. It includes people that most people don’t even know exist. When people say homeless they are referring to the visible ones on the street. Most studies and statistics like to use the ones who are homeless on paper. They are the ones who don’t have place to live other than publicly provided facilities. There are entire apartments of people you would otherwise not know are “homeless”, simply because they are not the one paying for their own room and board. We need a new term. Something to call the people that when somebody says homeless, we invasion in our head. Homeless is to broad. Nobody thinks you are differently because you got kicked out of your apartment or lost a job and fell behind on mortgage. In the other hand. The people clogging intersections. Spitting on others, taking shots in public, doing drugs and fuxking on the street, nobody thinks and no study shows 7500 would do anything other than make it worse. Ans that is why this study excluded these people from the study.

theGeatZhopa 3y ago

I think there are several Differentiations that need to be talked about. For me, living in in Germany, actually, it's pretty difficult to become homeless. One needs to want to be homeless, to become a true homeless. As in general, we have a social net in here. Each one can apply to get Burgergeld (Money for citizens). We're paying the rent and the costs for heating and so on.. so, a homeless is a homeless, because of pride or other reasons. If it happens that one loses his job, can't pay the bills and the monthly rent - one can apply for the money. Also, there are shelters and food stations for the homeless.. so, actually, If you don't want to be homeless, you'll get the help. On the other side, we still have homeless living on the street. Being ill and dirty. I talked to some random guy, he told me, that he actually want to live on the street. Another guy hast some mental problems and can't use money. In the end he spends all the money for weed and alcohol in the first two days after receiving. So, we have homeless who went homeless because of the personal life situations. This guys should get all the money they need to build a new life. All the others should get material help, like place to live, educational things and so on... Yes, it's cruel to say "you get money, you not" - but I don't see a way for the one's who don't want help, that they actually can pull themselves up

CSSer 3y ago
Although it’s fair to say our social net needs patching, I find it interesting that I’ve made similar observations in some places here in the United States, especially in places with robust assistance. You might find our history on mental institutions interesting if you’re unfamiliar. They were billed as a solution to the group you describe, and they were initially very popular and widely supported politically. Unfortunately, most people know the rest of the story. The system was rife with abuse and cruelty. I think it left a terrible mark on the idea that we could help such people effectively.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > The system was rife with abuse and cruelty. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the institutions were the source of abuse and cruelty, and that if we could only separate the providers and treatments from the institutions, then we would be magically wonderfully free of future abuse and cruelty. Is it any wonder that that hasn't exactly panned out? Now our mental institutions are simply borderless and invisible. There's nothing new under the sun.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I was homeless and on the streets between 1997-2003, although not continuously. Early in that period, I mismanaged my funds such that I bounced several checks, my bank closed my checking account, and they filed a report with ChexSystems to ensure that no bank would ever give me an account again, or at least that's what their letter told me. So I endured several long years without hope of having a bank account. That's surely one major issue for the homeless population. Nowadays you've got to wonder how they access any bank account they might have, with all the mandatory MFA and dwindling number of branches. I was friends with a lot of people on the streets, and money was a big issue for sure. It was spent on cigarettes and liquor, and if you could save up enough to get a motel for a few days, you definitely went for it, so you'd have a shower and a good night's sleep, but of course a motel is far more expensive than any other housing. We were friends with a couple, G & E, and E was confined to a wheelchair. He had been a skilled welder. G & E usually had housing, but they also had a peculiar syndrome of being robbed quite often. People would somehow break into their home and steal their trading cards, jewelry, and other valuables. These thieves may even have the correct key to their door. There was apparently nothing the landlord or law enforcement could do, so G & E had to keep purchasing stuff they wanted to replace what was stolen. G & E were also SNAP recipients, but E refused to eat anything but beef, so he'd splurge on big steaks at the grocery store, to the detriment of everything else. They'd also beg a meal off my friend while we were downtown, so she'd get a burger or two for them. They were always begging and busking and panhandling; never enough money. I know another fellow who has a home, and a car too, I think, and is on a few federal benefit programs, yet every time he's at church, he hits us up for cash. He knows some of these folks are well-heeled and they're good for a $20 bill or so. It seems that he asks at least once of every new friend he makes. In my own personal experience, I had an adulthood full of mismanaging finances and bills. I made a ridiculous salary but I ate Burger King and lived in a slum, so I could make ends meet. But eventually that lifestyle caught up with me. Then, I learned how to get by with no money, no income at all. As I gradually gained back an income, I still had big urges to spend every penny and I ran out every month. But I made sure not to go into debt and not to be overdrawn. Eventually that discipline of running out to $0 every month became something like a budget, and I began to realize that if I were frugal, and didn't splurge on luxuries, I really could make it through the month. Now that I am employed, I do manage to keep a positive balance in the bank, I pay off a small credit card, and I'm comfortable, but it took a lot of effort and a lot of pain for me to get here.

028 3y ago

[flagged]

hresvelgr 3y ago

It's almost as if respecting people's agency and trusting them proves to be the best cause of action. There's always going to be a minority who won't help themselves but the vast majority of people want help and are trying to help themselves.

mortureb 3y ago
[flagged]
demandingturtle 3y ago
[dead]

nn3 3y ago

"And people with severe mental health or substance use issues were screened out of the initiative" Just to keep in mind. I assume that's only some (small?) fraction of the homeless.

nervousvarun 3y ago
Not sure about Canada but in the U.S. it's 30%. Just curious as it's seems contrary to the prevailing narrative out there...why would you assume it's a small fraction? https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/homelessness_programs_resources/hrc-factsheet-current-statistics-prevalence-characteristics-homelessness.pdf https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaign...
- blanketcitrus 3y ago
  Because normal people don't end up sleeping in the streets - even poor people.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    The people "sleeping on the streets" represent a small fraction of the homeless population. A big chunk (~40% in CA) live in their cars, and the majority are sleeping in shelters (~66% nationwide, which must be lower in CA).
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Experiences
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  I find 30% quite low unless you count the ones that are purely economic and typically are doing things like sleeping in their car or other such things that aren't the typical picture of homelessness. Technically, I was "homeless" for 7 months in my life--but it was a planned thing, at no point did I ever not have a roof at night, but a few of those nights it was a tent roof.
3y ago

glonq 3y ago

It's it honest or ethical to say that the money was given to "homeless" people if only a small fraction qualified? It's like saying that I studied exercise in "men" but then only accepted people aged 25-29 who were above-average height and non-obese. Saying that I helped "men" doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, it misleads.

demandingturtle 3y ago

[dead]

black_13 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

10g1k 3y ago

How much did it cost per recipient? When there's a middle man between source and destination (e.g. government), that middle man absorbs cost. Source: tax-payers. Middle man: government. Destination: Some subset of the population selected by the government. I know this was organised by some charity, but when the government is involved, usually that middle mad is incredibly inefficient, and just wastes money all over the place. So the output from the source might be $100. The middle man will spend $40 just to pay for itself, and lose another $30 just by being government. The remainder will go to the subset selected by the middle man. Over a population and repeated cycles, the source runs out of money, the government increases its requirements and losses, and in the end there's nothing left for the selected recipients.

anomaloustho 3y ago

I’m having trouble determining the effectiveness here. The article repeatedly uses the phrase, “no increased spending on temptation goods”. I’m reading that as, “If the person had an addiction to meth, they still spent the same amount on meth, but they did it from the comfort of a new couch, in new clothes, in a new apartment. Sometimes they spent less on meth.” Is that a fair interpretation? Also, how do they know the person is spending money on temptation goods or not? Self-reported?