6 ms·

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://ww

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.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    1. There isn't a control group, so there really isn't a way to tell the effect. A regular $50 lump sum can be used for other stability enhancing purchases since it wasn't constrained for use on housing. Something like a pre-paid phone, that is requisite first steps for other improvements. 2. They measured more than just housing attainment, and there are definitely patterns that suggest that the $1000 group had a higher impact. 3. The selection process was done through outreach agencies, who recruited from people already seeking help. That group seems likely to already be on a path away from homelessness, vs. those who do not seek external help. Really, this is a clickbait article, written about a preliminary/inadequate study. The actual data is here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a15eec7a812dee108e7c/1718722914185/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88...
    - moi2388 2y ago
      It most definitely is a control group is what you are researching is if the amount of money matters. Just not if you try to measure if any amount of money VS none matters
      - dghlsakjg 2y ago
        No. A control group is a pretty well agreed upon term. It is the group to which no intervention is given. There was no control group. Read the actual paper linked. You can sort of use an intervention group as a control group in clinical studies when, for example, comparing an old medication against a new one. This works because the original study of the old medication had a control group that you can infer as valid for comparison to the new medication. You are correct that we can infer whether the amount of intervention matters, but there is no way to know the effect of those first $50. Diminishing marginal utility theory from economics tells us that the first $50 is going to be those with the greatest effect, so this study is missing a massive piece of the puzzle.
        carlmr 2y ago
        $50 is more like a placebo control, than a non-placebo control. It's not enough money to be able to afford housing, but it may have an effect of making people feel like somebody cares, i.e. a mental effect, just like a placebo can help patients in other studies.
        dghlsakjg 2y ago
        READ THE STUDY. Housing attainment is just one thing they were measuring. $50 is not a placebo or a control. Again, those have actual definitions when it comes to science, even social science. There is a damn good reason that the actual paper never called it a control group, or tried to imply it. $50 is real. For a homeless person, $50 cash in your pocket will provide an actual, not perceived effect. I'm not saying that $50/mo can't act as an effective control. I'm saying that there is no evidence available to reach that conclusion. There are economic theories that suggest that the first $50 is more important than subsequent amounts, so it would be important to prove or disprove that in the real world. There is also the mental effect as you pointed out, but if you read the study you would know that all of the people recruited for this study were recruited through relationships at support agencies. Meaning that they were already in touch with agencies that gave the feeling of people caring about them.

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.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  1. There isn't a control group, so there really isn't a way to tell the effect. A regular $50 lump sum can be used for other stability enhancing purchases since it wasn't constrained for use on housing. Something like a pre-paid phone, that is requisite first steps for other improvements. 2. They measured more than just housing attainment, and there are definitely patterns that suggest that the $1000 group had a higher impact. 3. The selection process was done through outreach agencies, who recruited from people already seeking help. That group seems likely to already be on a path away from homelessness, vs. those who do not seek external help. Really, this is a clickbait article, written about a preliminary/inadequate study. The actual data is here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a15eec7a812dee108e7c/1718722914185/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef88...
  - moi2388 2y ago
    It most definitely is a control group is what you are researching is if the amount of money matters. Just not if you try to measure if any amount of money VS none matters
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      No. A control group is a pretty well agreed upon term. It is the group to which no intervention is given. There was no control group. Read the actual paper linked. You can sort of use an intervention group as a control group in clinical studies when, for example, comparing an old medication against a new one. This works because the original study of the old medication had a control group that you can infer as valid for comparison to the new medication. You are correct that we can infer whether the amount of intervention matters, but there is no way to know the effect of those first $50. Diminishing marginal utility theory from economics tells us that the first $50 is going to be those with the greatest effect, so this study is missing a massive piece of the puzzle.
      - carlmr 2y ago
        $50 is more like a placebo control, than a non-placebo control. It's not enough money to be able to afford housing, but it may have an effect of making people feel like somebody cares, i.e. a mental effect, just like a placebo can help patients in other studies.
        dghlsakjg 2y ago
        READ THE STUDY. Housing attainment is just one thing they were measuring. $50 is not a placebo or a control. Again, those have actual definitions when it comes to science, even social science. There is a damn good reason that the actual paper never called it a control group, or tried to imply it. $50 is real. For a homeless person, $50 cash in your pocket will provide an actual, not perceived effect. I'm not saying that $50/mo can't act as an effective control. I'm saying that there is no evidence available to reach that conclusion. There are economic theories that suggest that the first $50 is more important than subsequent amounts, so it would be important to prove or disprove that in the real world. There is also the mental effect as you pointed out, but if you read the study you would know that all of the people recruited for this study were recruited through relationships at support agencies. Meaning that they were already in touch with agencies that gave the feeling of people caring about them.