3 ms·

Link’s here in case it’s not clear: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research I love how they credit

by 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.