7 ms·

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 receiv

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
      Very cheap 24 hour place to shower and use the bathroom.
    - throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
      There used to be stories on HN where kids in SV earning good jobs would stay "homeless" and shower at Google type offices or a gym. It's a thing.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      * showers. many gyms often have soap as well. the Golds Gym I used to go to had that, albeit it mostly handsoap dispensers (with handsoap) in the showers. but it was enough in a crunch if I forgot my own body wash * lockers. most places claim "24 hours only" but aren't so great about that, and many will let you rent lockers for 24/7 storage for trivial money. * decent toilets, sinks, mirrors. it's hard to shower, shave, and shit in a gas station bathroom. * you can wash clothes. gyms with a pool often have drying equipment (like the little centrifuges for bathing suits). also saunas and blowdryers. like if you only have 3 pairs of undies, you can give 2 of em a good wash and spin them mostly dry, then hang em in a locker. * 24/7 access. hang out or workout at night, and then quietly grab a nap somewhere (mostly) secure. clean your gear, take a shower, get right, without a ton of people around. hit a couple of reps for arms and shoulders while you're at it. * most gyms I've been to often have powerbars or other cheap meal replacements / proteins in vending machines as well, which may be your only option if you're down to < $5 a day for food
- frustratedlazy 2y ago
  That's not crazy in Denver :). I saw a place which was 850$ a month (literally this month), and it was in a decent location, and relatively large. I totally believe you could find something small and cheap for 500.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Yeah, it's crazy in Denver... wtf are you talking about? Avg is like 2k. Browse craigslist. Denver has been hot for years. I live in a 100k Midwest town and 500 is crazy here.
    - dsauerbrun 2y ago
      I'd imagine they mean a room in a house... or someone's basement in englewood that's in a dumpy spot.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Average says little about the minimums. At my first job one of my coworkers was splitting a cheap 2 bedroom apartment among 8 working adults. Hardly ideal, but it fit his goals.
    - ojbyrne 2y ago
      Maybe they know some of the other people who got money and they’re sharing an apt.
  - c22 2y ago
    When I was in college I had a pretty sweet house-sitting gig with a guy who was out of town for a lot of the year operating commercial research vessels. He paid me $250/month to watch the place while he was gone, take care of his dog, water the plants, etc. When he was in town I paid $250/mo to rent my room, but since most years he was gone for 5-8 months my net cost was <$0.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  The $500 might have enabled finding a job
oefrha 2y ago
Link’s here in case it’s not clear: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research I love how they credit themselves for “significant improvements in housing outcomes”, “an increase in financial stability and a greater ability to pay bills and reduced reliance on emergency assistance”, and “substantial cost savings in public spending and a large reduction in public service utilization” even for the $50/mo group. Makes me wonder why they don’t have a Group D receiving nothing, or if they had one but decided not to publish results on that. (Yes, I know it’s hard to get people to participate if you give them nothing. Maybe delayed payment could work.)
- scarmig 2y ago
  There's another tidbit I noticed that I missed before: at the time of enrollment, 6% were housed for the first and second group, 12% for the control. Presumably those already housed would be more likely to be housed after a year than someone homeless, so the effect size may have been larger. Who knows if it's distinguishable from noise--the "quantitative" report indicates some minority of effects are statistically significant. I feel like it's possible to design a much better experiment than this. But my overarching concern is that I don't trust activist studies on homelessness issues, been burned too many times taking them at face value.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cypherpunks01 2y ago
Conclusion from Year 1 report: While the findings outlined in this report indicate overall improvement for DBIP participants across many targeted outcomes, minimal differences were observed when comparing outcomes across the different payment groups. This may suggest that consistent cash assistance of even $50 can improve many aspects of one’s life. Or, as we heard through member checking, it was the aggregate of the whole DIBP program that made a difference for individuals. This means the trust conveyed by delivering guaranteed income, attention by community based organizational partner staff, phones and phone plans, and connections. I think this effect is seen a lot in various psychological and well-being studies, I'm not sure if it has a name. But basically, if someone demonstrates they are interested in your well-being and stays in touch with you, it can often have an outsized positive effect on one's life, especially when connection and support have been difficult to find.
- nradov 2y ago
  This is perhaps similar to the Hawthorne Effect. Just paying attention to people tends to improve outcomes. https://www.simplypsychology.org/hawthorne-effect.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/hawthorne-effect.html
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    I was about to post the same thing, this very much sound like a hawthorne effect. Being homeless also can come with strong feelings of isolation and rejection from society which can then demotivate and be an addition source of depression. So the attention and actual sustained help can not only improve their financial but also their mental state - both are needed.
joegibbs 2y ago
So it basically does nothing at all? Just from personal observation, it seems like that would make sense - there's a group of homeless people who are homeless due to circumstance, hate being homeless, and will try as hard as they can to only be homeless for a short time. Then there's the other group, people with severe mental illness, drug addiction, who aren't rational and are chronically homeless because they basically can't function in society. You could give them as much money as you want and it wouldn't make much of a difference. What they need is to be put in some kind of permanent care.
- dusted 2y ago
  I thought the same, and just participating in this study (the "control group" who got $50) selects the former group.
- matltc 2y ago
  Good to see you on here posting correct takes, coach.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
  > So it basically does nothing at all? The effects on employment were much more pronounced than housing. The $1000/mo group went from 15% employment to 37%, and the $50/mo group had no change in employment at all. It makes some sense: employment is probably more elastic to changes in financial status than housing. Just being able to afford transportation or a bit of occasional child care can immediately alter one's employment prospects.
  - lupire 2y ago
    It's amazing that employment has almost no effect on housing.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
      It probably does, but it might take quite a while for the effect to show up because people need to save up first month + last month + security deposit in order to get a place.
karaterobot 2y ago
That last bit is by far the most interesting part. It should be the headline.
thefourthchime 2y ago
Totally anecdotal, but my wife and I visited Denver last year, there are certainly plenty of people still homeless.
- emseetech 2y ago
  This was a pilot program with only 800 participants.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  Unpopular opinion: There will always be some amount of homeless in the US. No matter how much money, housing or healthcare we provide.
lolnotuse 2y ago
I hate that it is interesting. ”Logic” tells me a 20x monthly income increase would lead to more than a 1% increase in housed population. 6.5x more than _that_ only led to a 5% increase in housed population. Sigh. Everything sucks, doesn’t it?
- throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
  Why do you hate it it, because it goes against your preconditioning? I'd be happy to have new information.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    They hate the fact, not that they know it. They would prefer the “boring” option of more money leading to much better outcomes compared to the surprising results that are actually true.
- more_corn 2y ago
  I think this just means start with $50 a month to get the first tranche, test other interventions for each subsequent group (maybe mental health support, a fixed mailing address, job training) It’s just evidence. You wanted a clean solution and you got evidence that the thing you thought solved the problem doesn’t have the effect you’d like.
Timshel 2y ago
As far as I'm aware Denver homeless people do not receive $50 a month so there is no control group ...
beAbU 2y ago
So either: A) 1K/month (or the equivalent thereof) is not nearly enough to really make a difference in terms of increasing prospects to finding housing and the 3 groups could have just as well received $50/$51/$52 a month for all that it's worth. Or, B) There's a roughly ~50/50 split of people who do not want to be homeless, who will do whatever they can do get themselves housed, and the other group that just don't care/unable/unwilling to find housing regardless of money, as the money will be used for other things in stead of finding housing.
noobermin 2y ago
Why wouldn't a control be a group of people given no money?
- recursivecaveat 2y ago
  You have to pay them something to show up, answer questions, fill out journals, etc. Otherwise participation rates will be super low and very biased.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    esp. for the homeless, who don't have the means, energy, or motivation, to schlep across town to do questions. some might have a cellphone, but why bother answering questions for someone who isn't going to help you?
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
  It's probably the minimum amount to keep them engaged in the study.
- washadjeffmad 2y ago
  I'm sure they've already collected data on people they've given no money to. The null hypothesis was that "support" as given provided material benefits irrespective of an amount of cash given.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

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
    Very cheap 24 hour place to shower and use the bathroom.
  - throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
    There used to be stories on HN where kids in SV earning good jobs would stay "homeless" and shower at Google type offices or a gym. It's a thing.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    * showers. many gyms often have soap as well. the Golds Gym I used to go to had that, albeit it mostly handsoap dispensers (with handsoap) in the showers. but it was enough in a crunch if I forgot my own body wash * lockers. most places claim "24 hours only" but aren't so great about that, and many will let you rent lockers for 24/7 storage for trivial money. * decent toilets, sinks, mirrors. it's hard to shower, shave, and shit in a gas station bathroom. * you can wash clothes. gyms with a pool often have drying equipment (like the little centrifuges for bathing suits). also saunas and blowdryers. like if you only have 3 pairs of undies, you can give 2 of em a good wash and spin them mostly dry, then hang em in a locker. * 24/7 access. hang out or workout at night, and then quietly grab a nap somewhere (mostly) secure. clean your gear, take a shower, get right, without a ton of people around. hit a couple of reps for arms and shoulders while you're at it. * most gyms I've been to often have powerbars or other cheap meal replacements / proteins in vending machines as well, which may be your only option if you're down to < $5 a day for food
frustratedlazy 2y ago
That's not crazy in Denver :). I saw a place which was 850$ a month (literally this month), and it was in a decent location, and relatively large. I totally believe you could find something small and cheap for 500.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  Yeah, it's crazy in Denver... wtf are you talking about? Avg is like 2k. Browse craigslist. Denver has been hot for years. I live in a 100k Midwest town and 500 is crazy here.
  - dsauerbrun 2y ago
    I'd imagine they mean a room in a house... or someone's basement in englewood that's in a dumpy spot.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Average says little about the minimums. At my first job one of my coworkers was splitting a cheap 2 bedroom apartment among 8 working adults. Hardly ideal, but it fit his goals.
  - ojbyrne 2y ago
    Maybe they know some of the other people who got money and they’re sharing an apt.
- c22 2y ago
  When I was in college I had a pretty sweet house-sitting gig with a guy who was out of town for a lot of the year operating commercial research vessels. He paid me $250/month to watch the place while he was gone, take care of his dog, water the plants, etc. When he was in town I paid $250/mo to rent my room, but since most years he was gone for 5-8 months my net cost was <$0.
jncfhnb 2y ago
The $500 might have enabled finding a job

oefrha 2y ago

Link’s here in case it’s not clear: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research I love how they credit themselves for “significant improvements in housing outcomes”, “an increase in financial stability and a greater ability to pay bills and reduced reliance on emergency assistance”, and “substantial cost savings in public spending and a large reduction in public service utilization” even for the $50/mo group. Makes me wonder why they don’t have a Group D receiving nothing, or if they had one but decided not to publish results on that. (Yes, I know it’s hard to get people to participate if you give them nothing. Maybe delayed payment could work.)

scarmig 2y ago
There's another tidbit I noticed that I missed before: at the time of enrollment, 6% were housed for the first and second group, 12% for the control. Presumably those already housed would be more likely to be housed after a year than someone homeless, so the effect size may have been larger. Who knows if it's distinguishable from noise--the "quantitative" report indicates some minority of effects are statistically significant. I feel like it's possible to design a much better experiment than this. But my overarching concern is that I don't trust activist studies on homelessness issues, been burned too many times taking them at face value.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

cypherpunks01 2y ago

Conclusion from Year 1 report: While the findings outlined in this report indicate overall improvement for DBIP participants across many targeted outcomes, minimal differences were observed when comparing outcomes across the different payment groups. This may suggest that consistent cash assistance of even $50 can improve many aspects of one’s life. Or, as we heard through member checking, it was the aggregate of the whole DIBP program that made a difference for individuals. This means the trust conveyed by delivering guaranteed income, attention by community based organizational partner staff, phones and phone plans, and connections. I think this effect is seen a lot in various psychological and well-being studies, I'm not sure if it has a name. But basically, if someone demonstrates they are interested in your well-being and stays in touch with you, it can often have an outsized positive effect on one's life, especially when connection and support have been difficult to find.

nradov 2y ago
This is perhaps similar to the Hawthorne Effect. Just paying attention to people tends to improve outcomes. https://www.simplypsychology.org/hawthorne-effect.html https://www.simplypsychology.org/hawthorne-effect.html
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  I was about to post the same thing, this very much sound like a hawthorne effect. Being homeless also can come with strong feelings of isolation and rejection from society which can then demotivate and be an addition source of depression. So the attention and actual sustained help can not only improve their financial but also their mental state - both are needed.

joegibbs 2y ago

So it basically does nothing at all? Just from personal observation, it seems like that would make sense - there's a group of homeless people who are homeless due to circumstance, hate being homeless, and will try as hard as they can to only be homeless for a short time. Then there's the other group, people with severe mental illness, drug addiction, who aren't rational and are chronically homeless because they basically can't function in society. You could give them as much money as you want and it wouldn't make much of a difference. What they need is to be put in some kind of permanent care.

dusted 2y ago
I thought the same, and just participating in this study (the "control group" who got $50) selects the former group.
matltc 2y ago
Good to see you on here posting correct takes, coach.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
> So it basically does nothing at all? The effects on employment were much more pronounced than housing. The $1000/mo group went from 15% employment to 37%, and the $50/mo group had no change in employment at all. It makes some sense: employment is probably more elastic to changes in financial status than housing. Just being able to afford transportation or a bit of occasional child care can immediately alter one's employment prospects.
- lupire 2y ago
  It's amazing that employment has almost no effect on housing.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
    It probably does, but it might take quite a while for the effect to show up because people need to save up first month + last month + security deposit in order to get a place.

karaterobot 2y ago

That last bit is by far the most interesting part. It should be the headline.

thefourthchime 2y ago

Totally anecdotal, but my wife and I visited Denver last year, there are certainly plenty of people still homeless.

emseetech 2y ago
This was a pilot program with only 800 participants.
throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
Unpopular opinion: There will always be some amount of homeless in the US. No matter how much money, housing or healthcare we provide.

lolnotuse 2y ago

I hate that it is interesting. ”Logic” tells me a 20x monthly income increase would lead to more than a 1% increase in housed population. 6.5x more than _that_ only led to a 5% increase in housed population. Sigh. Everything sucks, doesn’t it?

throwaway7ahgb 2y ago
Why do you hate it it, because it goes against your preconditioning? I'd be happy to have new information.
- echoangle 2y ago
  They hate the fact, not that they know it. They would prefer the “boring” option of more money leading to much better outcomes compared to the surprising results that are actually true.
more_corn 2y ago
I think this just means start with $50 a month to get the first tranche, test other interventions for each subsequent group (maybe mental health support, a fixed mailing address, job training) It’s just evidence. You wanted a clean solution and you got evidence that the thing you thought solved the problem doesn’t have the effect you’d like.

Timshel 2y ago

As far as I'm aware Denver homeless people do not receive $50 a month so there is no control group ...

beAbU 2y ago

So either: A) 1K/month (or the equivalent thereof) is not nearly enough to really make a difference in terms of increasing prospects to finding housing and the 3 groups could have just as well received $50/$51/$52 a month for all that it's worth. Or, B) There's a roughly ~50/50 split of people who do not want to be homeless, who will do whatever they can do get themselves housed, and the other group that just don't care/unable/unwilling to find housing regardless of money, as the money will be used for other things in stead of finding housing.

noobermin 2y ago

Why wouldn't a control be a group of people given no money?

recursivecaveat 2y ago
You have to pay them something to show up, answer questions, fill out journals, etc. Otherwise participation rates will be super low and very biased.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  esp. for the homeless, who don't have the means, energy, or motivation, to schlep across town to do questions. some might have a cellphone, but why bother answering questions for someone who isn't going to help you?
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
It's probably the minimum amount to keep them engaged in the study.
washadjeffmad 2y ago
I'm sure they've already collected data on people they've given no money to. The null hypothesis was that "support" as given provided material benefits irrespective of an amount of cash given.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]