8 ms·
Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- themafia 8mo agoSo if you give people money they'll endeavor to tell you precisely what they think you want to hear. I would be much more impressed if this wasn't based solely on self-reported results.
- slater 8mo agoYeah, couldn't possibly be that there were any actually good results coming from this. That's just an impossibility.
- gameman144 8mo agoI don't think the parent is even saying that, their point is pretty reasonable: having some objective measure for before and after in any study is more reliable than self-reporting, especially when the subject might be incentivized to lie. The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.
- sxde 8mo agoMaybe I misunderstood the article, but... the participants would have had no incentive to lie? They were going to get the money for the fixed period unconditionally. That was the point.
- Zigurd 8mo agoTBF the welfare queen trope is well trodden ground. I'm actually surprised to see it brought up more than once in a supposedly sophisticated forum.
- mikepurvis 8mo agoA lot of existing social assistance is wildly inefficient as it is. With proper calibration of expectations, I think most people would be thrilled to see even 1/3 of the target population meaningfully helped. The rest of cash giveaway is not "waste" in that scenario, it's the cost of helping the ones that do end up homed, working, and paying taxes... which then contribute back to lowering the net cost of the "waste".
- redleader55 8mo agoI don't think that's what GP is saying. This report would be more believable and more objective if it would have other types of metrics than just self-reporting ones. There is a kind of people that function by finding edge-cases, questioning the results and posing uneasy questions when presented with a situation. Some might call them "haters", or nit-pickers, but I think their way of thinking is useful to make sure we're not just being fed feel-good make-believe.
- onlyrealcuzzo 8mo agoIf you pay people $1k to kill snakes, you'll end up with a lot of dead snakes, but you'll also end up with more snakes. It's not good enough to prove that the solution to the problem works for one side. It could create a problem elsewhere, and easily a bigger problem than you had before. It's definitely not a good enough answer to give people $1k and essentially ask them: did you like getting $1k? That's not what happened. This is what they did: > Oregon’s results confirm what we saw in New York: When you cover the real cost of shared housing directly for two years — and pair it with support — young people stay housed That's very light on details. I would hope we can assume with a non-trivial sample size that you will find at least some success cases. That should not surprise anyone. It matters: how often did it pay off (not answered), how much did it pay off (housed after is a start, for how long, what other improvements would be good to know), was it worth it (presumably we could've given them $10M per month and got similar results, which clearly would not have been worth it), and how can you prove it doesn't create a worse problem elsewhere (the hard part). People like to just assume that if you give people money there's no hidden side effects elsewhere. Giving money is good. Plain and simple. There can't be any bad involved. Well, there can.
- fwip 8mo agoHold on - what exactly do you think they're lying about? Whether they're currently housed? Because, imo, that's the headline result - 94% is a great success rate.
- xn 8mo agoIt could be. How did the control group do?
- toast0 8mo agoWhat I got from the article is that 94% reported being housed at the end of the period where they were receiving money. But the real question for me is what happens 6 months to a year after the funding ends.
- insane_dreamer 8mo agoyes. This is a good data point, but a follow-on study is needed to see the regression rate and whether such aid is needed continuously or if doing so for a period of time is sufficient. Likely would depend on the reasons why they became homeless in the first place.
- nkrisc 8mo agoI agree, further study is warranted. They should do it again with a larger cohort for longer and with more objective measures.
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoLarger and larger until we're just flat out testing UBI is fine by me. If you want to test UBI, there's no better way than implementing UBI.
- hubber 8mo ago[flagged]
- kelseyfrog 8mo agoOk? Sorry, I don't understand the point you're making.
- nkrisc 8mo agoSure, if you want to live on $1,000/month, go for it. I’ll be earning more than that though so I can travel more and do other stuff. Maybe you’ll get bored and spend some of your time doing something productive, or maybe not, and that’s OK too.
- insane_dreamer 8mo agoplease post location of beach and list of beverages that you can possibly survive on for $1K/month
- stevenwoo 8mo agoWe already know just based on the limited amount from the annual payment to all residents of Alaska from their state wide oil and mineral fund over the past 40 some odd years, there are a lot of studies - off top of my head some study found people who were unemployed were in aggregate slightly more likely to get work, because the money enabled them to look farther for jobs instead of just surviving, it also increased demand for goods and services provided by other Alaskans. Here's one of many that breaks things down from economist point of view https://home.uchicago.edu/~j1s/Jones_Alaska_2022.pdf https://home.uchicago.edu/~j1s/Jones_Alaska_2022.pdf
- gtowey 8mo ago> “Just one year after completing (the program), I’m in my own place, halfway through a business degree, focused on building a stable, secure foundation for my daughter and myself, and working toward becoming a nonprofit leader who supports her community.” I know, right? She did all that just so she could give her social workers the feedback they wanted to hear! Those liberals are so dastardly!
- solid_fuel 8mo agoThose sneaky freeloaders, materially improving their lives and futures just to “prove” that social programs work.
- yunnpp 8mo agoAnd then they went back to homelessness. Those social workers running the survey won't even notice how poisoned the data set is.
- rolph 8mo agoself reported results that may be confirmed, vs subjective self reports such as, i feel happy and motivated now.
- Antibabelic 8mo agoLibertarians who want the impoverished to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" don't realize what that takes. Nobody deserves to live without a home. We need successes like these so that as many people as possible can get assistance.
- gameman144 8mo agoIt's also wild just how cost-effective interventions like this can be. You can pay a thousand here and there, or a few hundred thousand incarcerating these people when they turn to crime out of desperation.
- jmward01 8mo agoTotally agree. I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs but the reality is if we don't find effective policies I end up paying more in taxes for emergency treatment and society take major economic hits for the other secondary problems, like crime, that homelessness causes. Of course the other argument for this is that society clearly has a hand in the path that took these people to where they are at now so society has some responsibility. Both are reasons to support well researched evidence based policy decisions to deal with the problem.
- yunnpp 8mo agoYou don't want to pay taxes for social programs as opposed to...what? Military and defense spending? What is there better than a social program?
- jmward01 8mo agoThere are several reactions to the 'I don't want to pay taxes' so I'll pick this one and respond. I hope you read the rest of the comment. I don't want to pay taxes because who does? Ever? But we -need- to pay taxes for programs that work because the alternative, massive social costs and damage to society, are far worse. So, sure, I don't want to pay taxes for social programs but I admit the need to and therefore I want the most effective, evidence based programs we can find. We need value for the effort and that involves doing research to figure that value out. If a program like this efficiently reduces the problems associated with homelessness I am all for it. As to what I would actually want to pay taxes for it is to build new things and achieve new things as a society. I never want to spend money on 'fixing', it is needed, it has to happen, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Building new things however I am 100% for. Get us to space. Find new particles. Help foster the arts. That is what I want my taxes to go for. So, yes, fund things like this if it is effective because we have to but you won't get me to say I want to spend money one this.
- Nekhrimah 8mo agoOh look, it worked again.
- readthenotes1 8mo agoHow's that? You give people enough money for food and shelter for a while and they have food and shelter while you're giving them that money? It says nothing about what happened 5 years after the participants stopped getting the money. And I'll remind you that giving money to people directly instead of creating complex government programs is exactly what Reagan wanted in the 1960s when a lot of the programs started--so must be a suspect idea
- honeycrispy 8mo agoI like the idea of helping people out of poverty. But the problem with government funded charities is they are so ripe for fraud, they almost never get managed properly.
- bo0tzz 8mo agoThis is a myth, actual fraud rates on programs like this are tiny - especially if you compare them to the benefits.
- PaulKeeble 8mo agoFraud rates on benefits are also absurdly low.
- RealityVoid 8mo agoI read that more that the benefits society gets from lifting people from poverty as opposed to the food stamps benefits you seem to have in mind.
- bo0tzz 8mo agoThat is indeed what I meant.
- treetalker 8mo agoI say we first ensure that fraudsters be not placed in government positions, and then worry more about eradicating the lesser fraud in charities that receive some funding from the government.
- yunnpp 8mo agoOP's comment is just hilarious on too many levels. "I like X, but...", so let's not even try. No evidence for the claim, either. And all while failing to see the bigger picture.
- 8mo ago
- threethirtytwo 8mo ago> More than half of participants were women, while 30% were male and 18% identified as transgender or gender inclusive. Why were the ratios not representative of actual homeless demographics? Most homeless people are biological men by an overwhelming majority. Maybe transgendered people and women seek more help? Or the people conducting this study were biased themselves? As a result, I don’t think the results universally say something about homelessness.
- bandrami 8mo agoProbably because homeless women are more likely than homeless men to access social services, which means they're where the program directors can find them?
- duskwuff 8mo agoThis program specifically targeted homeless youth; it seems plausible that the demographics of that segment might differ from the larger community.
- threethirtytwo 8mo agoThis makes sense, targeting youth likely has a higher chance of a better outcome?
- kayfox 8mo agoFrom my experiences, it does have a higher chance of better outcome, as homeless youth are usually homeless because of some family issue and not because they are unable to hold down a job as a result of drug abuse or being homeless.
- apothegm 8mo agoYup. And the longer they’re homeless the higher the likelihood that they do develop health or drug problems and shift from being relatively easy to relatively difficult to get back on their feet. Plus, homeless youth can include kids as young as 14 or 15, who are especially vulnerable to predators on the street.
- luafox 8mo agoConsider reading the full final report here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60418acae851e139836c67ed/t/69614e36fde8df7b3b73a705/1767984694390/DCT%2B+Final+Report.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60418acae851e139836c6... Contains significantly more information and exact statistics.
- 3rodents 8mo agoUnfortunately it looks like the headline numbers may not be representative: “The research team did not initially receive a complete participant contact list and the CBO staff led in facilitating recruitment, resulting in a sample that does not represent all DCT+ participants. The limited sample size further limits the representativeness and generalizability of findings. The evaluation sample of 63 participants represents only 54% of the total 117 program participants. Therefore, the study population may not adequately represent the broader DCT+ experience. Additionally, participants who completed both initial and exit surveys may differ systematically from those who did not, potentially skewing results toward more positive outcomes among individuals who remained engaged throughout the evaluation period.”
- another_twist 8mo agoHeres what happened .. A bunch of folks who were born into wealth and who vote Republican criticized the program as socialism since they believed that everyone should pull themselves by their bootstraps just as they did by being born into money. If you havent, well systems dont work for everybody so its tragic but helping people institutionally is socialism and nothing not even homelessness is worse.
- tbrownaw 8mo ago> Based on responses from about half of the program’s participants That "responses" is a link to the actual report. 1. The program was 120 people. 80 did an initial survey, 80 did a final survey, and there was an overlap is 60 who did both surveys. The survey was offered to all participants. So, this is not a random / representative sample. 2. The program also included counseling sessions. So, there's the potential for different results for money without counseling, or counseling without money. 3. I don't see any comparison to a control group. For example, it's well known that homelessness is usually transitory. Without a control group, there's nothing to identify what was caused by the program vs being caused by the usual course of things.
- RiceNBananas 8mo ago[flagged]
- owenbrown 8mo agoIt would be interesting if someone built a platform like Brex or Expensify, to manage spending within these programs. Something that balanced empowering participants and protecting their privacy, while also protecting them from financial abuse.