4 ms·
Wow, interesting that just $50/month did almost just as well as $1000/month.
by Hasz 3y ago
Wow, interesting that just $50/month did almost just as well as $1000/month.
- grumple 3y agoThat's basically the control group (but how do you perform a study like this without an actual control group and expect your data to be taken seriously?). 50/month being almost totally meaningless in terms of income. So really this study says that the larger payments goes a long way towards eliminating people sleeping outside and has a small/moderate effect on how many are able to rent/buy housing.
- recursivecaveat 3y agoI don't think you can have a $0 control group just because you have to pay the controls to fill out your surveys and such, otherwise their stats will be very out of whack.
- red_trumpet 3y agoWouldn't it make more sense to compare to existing welfare programs (if there are any?). A bit like new drugs often are not tested against placebo, but against existing drugs which already treat the same condition.
- enragedcacti 3y agoI imagine that would introduce way more sources of error you can't control for, especially since ethically you can't incentivize follow-ups using welfare services they would otherwise already be entitled to.
- thegrim33 3y agoIt doesn't help that they don't have any control group data to compare to. Group C was referred to as "Active comparison group" in their one-pager, which I assumed was a control group, but it isn't. Also pretty small sample sizes involved.
- paulddraper 3y ago...suggesting that it might be something other than the money.