8 ms·

Denver gave homeless people $1k/mth. Year later, nearly half had housing

141 points by neom 2y ago

throwitaway222 2y ago
Seems like a completely failed experiment if 100% didn't have housing.
- sodality2 2y ago
  Find me another example of a social safety net program that reduced its cost by 50% in one year, by lifting its recipients out of the qualifications for said welfare.
  - apsec112 2y ago
    There was no difference between the treatment group, and a control group given $50 per month. https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
    - sodality2 2y ago
      I was more responding to the fact that if a program like this had even a 50% exit rate in one year it would not be a failure, but that is surprising.
      - celdon25 2y ago
        Have to be careful with how you look at those numbers. It was already the case that most people who are homeless are not "chronically homeless". I don't doubt that there was some degree of reduction but if you are looking at it as a "50% cure rate" or something like that, you shouldn't be claiming things like "fact" or "success/failure" regarding the topic, without at least adding some more context.
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      There was no control group. That phraseology is never used in any of the papers or summaries on the page that you linked to Providing $50/month is just a different experiment.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Mhmm, yes. My computer crashed yesterday proving them useless so I threw it away. You should throw yours away too and return to the fields of your ancestors. Edit: well I thought it was funny
- OfficeChad 2y ago
  [dead]
rayiner 2y ago
What is the base rate who would’ve gotten housing? It’s well known that the vast majority of people (almost 80%) who are homeless at any given time are only transiently homeless. Chronically homeless people constitute a fraction of the overall population. So in any random sample of homeless people, you’d expect most to have housing a year later even without the money.
- apsec112 2y ago
  Excellent question. There was actually zero difference between the treatment group (given $1,000 a month) and the control group (given $50 a month). https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    There was no control group, that verbiage came from Business Insider, but not the research. Giving $50/month to one group that they weren't getting before isn't a control, at all. From the executive summary of the research: "All payment groups showed significant improvements in housing outcomes, including a remarkable increase in home rent and ownership, and decrease in nights spent unsheltered." The actual quantitative data (1, appendix table 4) shows that there were massive leaps in the number of people housed. Less than 10% of people were renting or owning at the start of the study, and more than 40% at the end. It didn't track any group that didn't receive payment so it doesn't tell us what the difference was, and it also doesn't give us much history as to how long they had been homeless. So that leaves open the question of how many of these people would have pulled themselves out of homelessness absent this intervention. It definitely needs more rigorous study, but these results certainly point towards something promising, which is supported by other programs. (1. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a15eec7a812dee108e7c/1718722914185/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88...)
    - rayiner 2y ago
      $50 per month is basically $0 when you’re talking about housing in Denver. What the study shows is that the money had basically no effect.
scarmig 2y ago
Interestingly: People who received $1k/month: 44% housed People who received a $6500 lump sum followed by $500/month: 48% housed The control group who received $50/month: 43% housed
- vinyl7 2y ago
  The real question is how are they finding housing for less than $500 a month?
  - fwip 2y ago
    They likely had either supplemental sources of income or additional assistance. E.g: If you have $500/month, you can afford to pay your buddy $200/month to crash on his couch. Now you have reliable access to a shower, an address to put on your resumes, a bit of cash to thrift a suit/dress clothes and a beater laptop, and it's way easier to get a job.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Like the person below said, it doesn't mean you found housing. It might mean you were able to buy a pre pay phone, gym membership, PO box, bus pass, decent pair of clothes, haircut, etc. Most of the jobs in the world don't rely on Zoom interviews and email. You'll get a phone call and have to physically go interview with someone. Really hard to hide looking and smelling like a mess in that scenario.
    - miki123211 2y ago
      Why would a gym membership be on anybody's priority list? is this a US thing?
      - walthamstow 2y ago
        It means somewhere to shower in the absence of a home.
      - andrewchambers 2y ago
apsec112 2y ago
facepalm Ugh, this is a horrible article. 45% of people found housing, but there was zero difference between the treatment group (given $1,000/month), a group given a large lump sum, and a control group given $50 a month! https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research A lot of people rotate in and out of homelessness, so we should expect some percentage to find housing after a year, even if nothing is done. Indeed, this seems like pretty strong evidence that giving more money does not help people find housing (at least in the range from $50/month to $1,000/month). They cite a decrease in public service costs, but again, there is no difference between treatment and control! See page 6 in this PDF: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a2285cf8513e1383ed9d/1718723132992/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Executive+Summary.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88... They calculate "saved costs" by estimating the difference in costs between the start of the program (a year ago) and a year into the program (now). However, since they are tracking a particular group of people, some of them will find homes and jobs on their own, so we should expect costs for that cohort to trend down no matter what. (This wouldn't lower costs overall, because in equilibrium, they would be replaced with newly homeless people with higher costs. But this is a cohort study, so those people wouldn't be included here.)
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  Indeed, "compared to what?" is always the question you should ask. In this case, it's "compared to $50/month" or "compared to doing nothing."
- Atotalnoob 2y ago
  45% are housed, however 12% of the control already had housing compared to 6% of the 1000/mo people before the study started This means the delta is higher for the people receiving 1000/mo.
  - roflulz 2y ago
    then this wasn't a good experiment at all then
proc0 2y ago
I'm not convinced. One of the biggest factors these kinds of programs ignore is the ability for people to circumvent the rules for free money. It assumes that the right people will be targeted for the help, when in reality it will attract many, many more that will do whatever they can to qualify for the free money. The program would need a 90% success or it means that the rules are easily breakable, there are no strings attached to the free money, and people will absolutely figure out the loopholes. This could be a step in the right direction if there is some form of filtering out people who will misuse the money, potentially making their situation worse by buying even more drugs or other bad decisions, and like anything else it will spready by word of mouth and the damage could be much worse than the current problem.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - proc0 2y ago
    I think there needs to be at least an attempt at monitoring people for some time and making sure they are not spending the money on something that will make their situation even worse. If they did this, then in theory you could have a really good success rate, although I admit I do not know the details of the logistics there. The alternative to just give out free money with no strings attached is potentially much worse because it will just attract all the people that can get away with it. We should help people but also the government should not be so naive to think everyone is an honest actor, especially when it comes to free money. If Denver officially launches this without the proper screening and monitoring, I could bet that their situation will get worse as many will move there just for that reason.
- tootie 2y ago
  I think that's overblown as a concern. It's acceptable to have some degree is misuse if it's still a net positive. Some degree of fraud is baked in to any human endeavor.
  - 2y ago
ilaksh 2y ago
I mean, $1000 is less than half as much as they need, and if they gave it to 800 or 900 people, that is out of 9,000 homeless. I think they should try doubling the payments and multiplying the number of recipients by 10. Probably don't have the money for that though and won't consider it even if they did have it.
- throwawa14223 2y ago
  Do you have reason to believe the sample size wasn't large enough?
passive 2y ago
A lot of people here are questioning the data of the study, but don't actually seem to be looking at that data? Yes, the control group, who received less money, also did well in some metrics, but in most metrics they also started off better, so the delta in their experience is in fact smaller. Furthermore, the control group also experienced a drop in full-time employment, while both of the subject groups experienced gains. I agree the headline isn't a useful representation of the importance of the data, but it does seem like this was a fairly impactful program.
- lupire 2y ago
  >in most metrics they also started off better, So it wasn't a control group at all, and the observed could be reversion to the mean.
jmyeet 2y ago
The biggest contributor to homelessness is unaffordable housing. The best solution for homelessness is... giving people housing. It is a remarkably simple cause-and-effect. Yet, that's now what we do. Many people view homelessness as some kind of personal moral failure. when, in the US in particular, you'll be surprised how close most Americans are to homelessness. It takes surprisingly little to go wrong to end up there. We would rather spend money on things like policing homeless people, even incarcerating them, which is objectively more expensive than simply housing such people.
- nickff 2y ago
  Have you ever been to a housing project focused on “giving people housing”? The outcomes aren’t quite as good as you seem to imply. Rampant drug dealing, abuse, overdoses, and violent crime including (but not limited to) sexual assault and robbery. The properties often end up destroyed after only a year or two of being used for this purpose.
  - he0001 2y ago
    So what’s your suggestion to help these people? Or we should just lock them away?
    - DecoySalamander 2y ago
      Institutionalizing people with severe drug abuse and mental health issues would be a major improvement. Unfortunately it isn't politically feasible.
      - throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
        Also keeping crime down in government housing so families can feel safe.
      - he0001 2y ago
        Are those the reason for all crimes done? And why isn’t this politically feasible? There has to be a solution?
TSUTiger 2y ago
At a multimillion dollar cost to taxpayers….
- cultofmetatron 2y ago
  between my taxes currently, funding among all things... * a sociopathic nation state thats hell bent on bombing and relocating the original inhabants of that land, * a private prison industry that uses its profits to lobby for more punitive sentences for nonviolent crimes * a military industrial complex that destabilizes countires around the world god forbid some small sliver of my tax dollars gets used to give homeless people some dignity and shocker keeping them off the streets which helps increase land value in the properties around where they used to hang out.
  - rswskg 2y ago
    You really need to understand the concept of the peace dividend.
- JSDevOps 2y ago
  Blame the consultants and project managers for that one not the participants
- debesyla 2y ago
  It's not like the money went away to space - people who got the money spent it on stuff, most likely local services and products, so it returned back. The real cost to taxpayers was either 0 or an influx of dollars due to slightly boosted local economy, not a loss.
- nhinck2 2y ago
  Welfare for lower socio-economic groups had a positive ROI.
JSDevOps 2y ago
Ok, only half. Thats not a great number. Now take away that money and come back and ask the same questions in a year. It’s not a great experiment is it.
wetpaws 2y ago
[dead]
xlinux 2y ago
The way homeless are treated is inhumane. Anyone could be in that situation. Be grateful for what you have and be kind to the unfortunate
lupire 2y ago
Flag thr clickbait misleading headline.
dasKrokodil 2y ago
I would like to see a study on the opposite case: give them free housing and see how many of them will then manage to get a job that pays at least 1000$ per month.
motiw 2y ago
The experiment in California is much better. Give a contractor $2500 per homeless person per month for a tent in the park. Data suggest that this increased the number of apartments the contractor owned, as well as the number of homeless people, which will then increase the number of apartments the contractor can buy
Balgair 2y ago
Actual data is here (PDF), starts on pg 16: file:///Users/Sunnydale/Downloads/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf The thing to look for are the charts that have the yellow star on them (statistically significant, p < 0.05). AFAICT, that means that those are the only 'real' findings in the study. I'll summarize for everyone: - All 3 groups found a positive Change in Perception of Stable Housing - All 3 groups found a positive Change in Financial Well-Being - The Lump sum group found a positive Change in Health - The $50/mo group found a negative Change in Energy (?) - The lump sum group found a positive Change in Sleep Quantity (6 to ~7 hours/night) - The $50/mo and $1k/mo groups found a negative Change in Sleep Quality - The lump sum group found a lowering of Food Insecurity - The $50/mo and $1k/mo groups found a lowering in Change in Parenting Distress - The $50/mo group had lower Hope Scores - The $50/mo group had lower Agency Scores - All groups had less Hours Per Day Spent Accessing Resources - the $50/mo and $1k/mo had greater Hours Per Day Spent for Social and Leisure - The $1k/mo had higher Transportation Security - The lump sum and $50/mo groups had lower Client Connection and Satisfaction with DBIP Partner Agency The actual data of the study starts on pg 58. A key finding is on the very last page; Changes in Public Service Costs. From there we find that the TOTAL COST SAVINGS was -$589,214. I'm not entirely sure of what is going on in the chart, but I believe (and please correct me) that a negative cost savings means that the costs then increased? So this program increased, by about $600, usage of Public Services. One wonders if they corrected for inflation over the time period. Overall, an amazing study. Honestly, I kinda can't believe they got it funded. I think it's added a lot to the conversation about UBI and has, like any good study, prompted a lot more questions than answers. Personally, I think muddied the waters more than anything. None of the measures of getting people off the streets were statistically significant, but that may be me misreading the data here. And a lot of the less key, but still good measures had people less well off than before (Client Connection and Satisfaction, Agency Scores, Hope Scores, Sleep Quality, Energy). It seems to me that most of the groups had an overall sense that this study was helping them out, kinda. But overall, I'm not all that sure it really did help anyone get off the streets here. It did seem to help with employment. This study, to me, really speaks to the difficulty that people have in becoming housed once homeless. That there are a lot of obstacles and that even an extra grand a month for a year isn't really enough. I'd like to see a study that does the Mythbusters approach and sees what it takes to get people off the streets, just upping things until it happens. But, per this study, that is going to take a lot of money to accomplish. If anything, this work kinda bends one towards the idea that addressing homelessness isn't really worth it; it's just too hard of a problem. So, maybe another study is needed on how to keep people from being homeless in the first place? Again, amazing work here. I feel this is going to be a seminal study for policy planners to argue over for decades.
nojvek 2y ago
Many people cite studies like this as pro-case for universal basic income. However universal really has to be universal e.g an entire country. This lets one measure the demand frenzy and resulting inflation. What works really well is supplementing incomes for the poor. Giving money out seems like the easiest thing to do, but much more effecting is increasing supply for basic goods and services. E.g housing, education, food, healthcare.

141 points by neom 2y ago

throwitaway222 2y ago

Seems like a completely failed experiment if 100% didn't have housing.

sodality2 2y ago
Find me another example of a social safety net program that reduced its cost by 50% in one year, by lifting its recipients out of the qualifications for said welfare.
- apsec112 2y ago
  There was no difference between the treatment group, and a control group given $50 per month. https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
  - sodality2 2y ago
    I was more responding to the fact that if a program like this had even a 50% exit rate in one year it would not be a failure, but that is surprising.
    - celdon25 2y ago
      Have to be careful with how you look at those numbers. It was already the case that most people who are homeless are not "chronically homeless". I don't doubt that there was some degree of reduction but if you are looking at it as a "50% cure rate" or something like that, you shouldn't be claiming things like "fact" or "success/failure" regarding the topic, without at least adding some more context.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    There was no control group. That phraseology is never used in any of the papers or summaries on the page that you linked to Providing $50/month is just a different experiment.
bongodongobob 2y ago
Mhmm, yes. My computer crashed yesterday proving them useless so I threw it away. You should throw yours away too and return to the fields of your ancestors. Edit: well I thought it was funny
OfficeChad 2y ago
[dead]

rayiner 2y ago

What is the base rate who would’ve gotten housing? It’s well known that the vast majority of people (almost 80%) who are homeless at any given time are only transiently homeless. Chronically homeless people constitute a fraction of the overall population. So in any random sample of homeless people, you’d expect most to have housing a year later even without the money.

apsec112 2y ago
Excellent question. There was actually zero difference between the treatment group (given $1,000 a month) and the control group (given $50 a month). https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  There was no control group, that verbiage came from Business Insider, but not the research. Giving $50/month to one group that they weren't getting before isn't a control, at all. From the executive summary of the research: "All payment groups showed significant improvements in housing outcomes, including a remarkable increase in home rent and ownership, and decrease in nights spent unsheltered." The actual quantitative data (1, appendix table 4) shows that there were massive leaps in the number of people housed. Less than 10% of people were renting or owning at the start of the study, and more than 40% at the end. It didn't track any group that didn't receive payment so it doesn't tell us what the difference was, and it also doesn't give us much history as to how long they had been homeless. So that leaves open the question of how many of these people would have pulled themselves out of homelessness absent this intervention. It definitely needs more rigorous study, but these results certainly point towards something promising, which is supported by other programs. (1. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a15eec7a812dee108e7c/1718722914185/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88...)
  - rayiner 2y ago
    $50 per month is basically $0 when you’re talking about housing in Denver. What the study shows is that the money had basically no effect.

scarmig 2y ago

Interestingly: People who received $1k/month: 44% housed People who received a $6500 lump sum followed by $500/month: 48% housed The control group who received $50/month: 43% housed

vinyl7 2y ago
The real question is how are they finding housing for less than $500 a month?
- fwip 2y ago
  They likely had either supplemental sources of income or additional assistance. E.g: If you have $500/month, you can afford to pay your buddy $200/month to crash on his couch. Now you have reliable access to a shower, an address to put on your resumes, a bit of cash to thrift a suit/dress clothes and a beater laptop, and it's way easier to get a job.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Like the person below said, it doesn't mean you found housing. It might mean you were able to buy a pre pay phone, gym membership, PO box, bus pass, decent pair of clothes, haircut, etc. Most of the jobs in the world don't rely on Zoom interviews and email. You'll get a phone call and have to physically go interview with someone. Really hard to hide looking and smelling like a mess in that scenario.
  - miki123211 2y ago
    Why would a gym membership be on anybody's priority list? is this a US thing?
    - walthamstow 2y ago
      It means somewhere to shower in the absence of a home.
    - andrewchambers 2y ago

apsec112 2y ago

facepalm Ugh, this is a horrible article. 45% of people found housing, but there was zero difference between the treatment group (given $1,000/month), a group given a large lump sum, and a control group given $50 a month! https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research A lot of people rotate in and out of homelessness, so we should expect some percentage to find housing after a year, even if nothing is done. Indeed, this seems like pretty strong evidence that giving more money does not help people find housing (at least in the range from $50/month to $1,000/month). They cite a decrease in public service costs, but again, there is no difference between treatment and control! See page 6 in this PDF: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a2285cf8513e1383ed9d/1718723132992/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Executive+Summary.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88... They calculate "saved costs" by estimating the difference in costs between the start of the program (a year ago) and a year into the program (now). However, since they are tracking a particular group of people, some of them will find homes and jobs on their own, so we should expect costs for that cohort to trend down no matter what. (This wouldn't lower costs overall, because in equilibrium, they would be replaced with newly homeless people with higher costs. But this is a cohort study, so those people wouldn't be included here.)

AlbertCory 2y ago
Indeed, "compared to what?" is always the question you should ask. In this case, it's "compared to $50/month" or "compared to doing nothing."
Atotalnoob 2y ago
45% are housed, however 12% of the control already had housing compared to 6% of the 1000/mo people before the study started This means the delta is higher for the people receiving 1000/mo.
- roflulz 2y ago
  then this wasn't a good experiment at all then

proc0 2y ago

I'm not convinced. One of the biggest factors these kinds of programs ignore is the ability for people to circumvent the rules for free money. It assumes that the right people will be targeted for the help, when in reality it will attract many, many more that will do whatever they can to qualify for the free money. The program would need a 90% success or it means that the rules are easily breakable, there are no strings attached to the free money, and people will absolutely figure out the loopholes. This could be a step in the right direction if there is some form of filtering out people who will misuse the money, potentially making their situation worse by buying even more drugs or other bad decisions, and like anything else it will spready by word of mouth and the damage could be much worse than the current problem.

silverquiet 2y ago
[flagged]
- proc0 2y ago
  I think there needs to be at least an attempt at monitoring people for some time and making sure they are not spending the money on something that will make their situation even worse. If they did this, then in theory you could have a really good success rate, although I admit I do not know the details of the logistics there. The alternative to just give out free money with no strings attached is potentially much worse because it will just attract all the people that can get away with it. We should help people but also the government should not be so naive to think everyone is an honest actor, especially when it comes to free money. If Denver officially launches this without the proper screening and monitoring, I could bet that their situation will get worse as many will move there just for that reason.
tootie 2y ago
I think that's overblown as a concern. It's acceptable to have some degree is misuse if it's still a net positive. Some degree of fraud is baked in to any human endeavor.
- 2y ago

ilaksh 2y ago

I mean, $1000 is less than half as much as they need, and if they gave it to 800 or 900 people, that is out of 9,000 homeless. I think they should try doubling the payments and multiplying the number of recipients by 10. Probably don't have the money for that though and won't consider it even if they did have it.

throwawa14223 2y ago
Do you have reason to believe the sample size wasn't large enough?

passive 2y ago

A lot of people here are questioning the data of the study, but don't actually seem to be looking at that data? Yes, the control group, who received less money, also did well in some metrics, but in most metrics they also started off better, so the delta in their experience is in fact smaller. Furthermore, the control group also experienced a drop in full-time employment, while both of the subject groups experienced gains. I agree the headline isn't a useful representation of the importance of the data, but it does seem like this was a fairly impactful program.

lupire 2y ago
>in most metrics they also started off better, So it wasn't a control group at all, and the observed could be reversion to the mean.

jmyeet 2y ago

The biggest contributor to homelessness is unaffordable housing. The best solution for homelessness is... giving people housing. It is a remarkably simple cause-and-effect. Yet, that's now what we do. Many people view homelessness as some kind of personal moral failure. when, in the US in particular, you'll be surprised how close most Americans are to homelessness. It takes surprisingly little to go wrong to end up there. We would rather spend money on things like policing homeless people, even incarcerating them, which is objectively more expensive than simply housing such people.

nickff 2y ago
Have you ever been to a housing project focused on “giving people housing”? The outcomes aren’t quite as good as you seem to imply. Rampant drug dealing, abuse, overdoses, and violent crime including (but not limited to) sexual assault and robbery. The properties often end up destroyed after only a year or two of being used for this purpose.
- he0001 2y ago
  So what’s your suggestion to help these people? Or we should just lock them away?
  - DecoySalamander 2y ago
    Institutionalizing people with severe drug abuse and mental health issues would be a major improvement. Unfortunately it isn't politically feasible.
    - throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
      Also keeping crime down in government housing so families can feel safe.
    - he0001 2y ago
      Are those the reason for all crimes done? And why isn’t this politically feasible? There has to be a solution?

TSUTiger 2y ago

At a multimillion dollar cost to taxpayers….

cultofmetatron 2y ago
between my taxes currently, funding among all things... * a sociopathic nation state thats hell bent on bombing and relocating the original inhabants of that land, * a private prison industry that uses its profits to lobby for more punitive sentences for nonviolent crimes * a military industrial complex that destabilizes countires around the world god forbid some small sliver of my tax dollars gets used to give homeless people some dignity and shocker keeping them off the streets which helps increase land value in the properties around where they used to hang out.
- rswskg 2y ago
  You really need to understand the concept of the peace dividend.
JSDevOps 2y ago
Blame the consultants and project managers for that one not the participants
debesyla 2y ago
It's not like the money went away to space - people who got the money spent it on stuff, most likely local services and products, so it returned back. The real cost to taxpayers was either 0 or an influx of dollars due to slightly boosted local economy, not a loss.
nhinck2 2y ago
Welfare for lower socio-economic groups had a positive ROI.

JSDevOps 2y ago

Ok, only half. Thats not a great number. Now take away that money and come back and ask the same questions in a year. It’s not a great experiment is it.

wetpaws 2y ago

[dead]

xlinux 2y ago

The way homeless are treated is inhumane. Anyone could be in that situation. Be grateful for what you have and be kind to the unfortunate

lupire 2y ago

Flag thr clickbait misleading headline.

dasKrokodil 2y ago

I would like to see a study on the opposite case: give them free housing and see how many of them will then manage to get a job that pays at least 1000$ per month.

motiw 2y ago

The experiment in California is much better. Give a contractor $2500 per homeless person per month for a tent in the park. Data suggest that this increased the number of apartments the contractor owned, as well as the number of homeless people, which will then increase the number of apartments the contractor can buy

Balgair 2y ago

Actual data is here (PDF), starts on pg 16: file:///Users/Sunnydale/Downloads/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf The thing to look for are the charts that have the yellow star on them (statistically significant, p < 0.05). AFAICT, that means that those are the only 'real' findings in the study. I'll summarize for everyone: - All 3 groups found a positive Change in Perception of Stable Housing - All 3 groups found a positive Change in Financial Well-Being - The Lump sum group found a positive Change in Health - The $50/mo group found a negative Change in Energy (?) - The lump sum group found a positive Change in Sleep Quantity (6 to ~7 hours/night) - The $50/mo and $1k/mo groups found a negative Change in Sleep Quality - The lump sum group found a lowering of Food Insecurity - The $50/mo and $1k/mo groups found a lowering in Change in Parenting Distress - The $50/mo group had lower Hope Scores - The $50/mo group had lower Agency Scores - All groups had less Hours Per Day Spent Accessing Resources - the $50/mo and $1k/mo had greater Hours Per Day Spent for Social and Leisure - The $1k/mo had higher Transportation Security - The lump sum and $50/mo groups had lower Client Connection and Satisfaction with DBIP Partner Agency The actual data of the study starts on pg 58. A key finding is on the very last page; Changes in Public Service Costs. From there we find that the TOTAL COST SAVINGS was -$589,214. I'm not entirely sure of what is going on in the chart, but I believe (and please correct me) that a negative cost savings means that the costs then increased? So this program increased, by about $600, usage of Public Services. One wonders if they corrected for inflation over the time period. Overall, an amazing study. Honestly, I kinda can't believe they got it funded. I think it's added a lot to the conversation about UBI and has, like any good study, prompted a lot more questions than answers. Personally, I think muddied the waters more than anything. None of the measures of getting people off the streets were statistically significant, but that may be me misreading the data here. And a lot of the less key, but still good measures had people less well off than before (Client Connection and Satisfaction, Agency Scores, Hope Scores, Sleep Quality, Energy). It seems to me that most of the groups had an overall sense that this study was helping them out, kinda. But overall, I'm not all that sure it really did help anyone get off the streets here. It did seem to help with employment. This study, to me, really speaks to the difficulty that people have in becoming housed once homeless. That there are a lot of obstacles and that even an extra grand a month for a year isn't really enough. I'd like to see a study that does the Mythbusters approach and sees what it takes to get people off the streets, just upping things until it happens. But, per this study, that is going to take a lot of money to accomplish. If anything, this work kinda bends one towards the idea that addressing homelessness isn't really worth it; it's just too hard of a problem. So, maybe another study is needed on how to keep people from being homeless in the first place? Again, amazing work here. I feel this is going to be a seminal study for policy planners to argue over for decades.

nojvek 2y ago

Many people cite studies like this as pro-case for universal basic income. However universal really has to be universal e.g an entire country. This lets one measure the demand frenzy and resulting inflation. What works really well is supplementing incomes for the poor. Giving money out seems like the easiest thing to do, but much more effecting is increasing supply for basic goods and services. E.g housing, education, food, healthcare.