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 th

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.