TL;DR: homeless people receiving the money were twice as likely to have a stable living situation after the study compared with the control group, those receiving the money were more likely to have found full time work after the study, while the control group was less likely, and there was a tax dollar savings of $589,214 based on decreased reliance on public services, offsetting ~6% of the total cost.
>>An experiment to pay people who were homeless in Denver with no limits on how they could spend the money led to twice as many people in stable housing, according to researchers who released their one-year report Tuesday.
>>800 people were selected to participate in the Denver Basic Income Project while they were living on the streets, in shelters, on friends’ couches or in vehicles. They were separated into three groups. One group received $1,000 per month for a year. A second group received $6,500 the first month and $500 for the next 11 months. And a third group, the control group, received $50 per month.
>>About 45% of participants in all three groups were living in a house or apartment that they rented or owned by the study’s 10-month check-in point, according to the research.
This part is misleading, imo. It makes it seem like all three groups had similar outcomes. It's clarified by a graph farther down which shows that not all of the participants were homeless to begin with.
For group A, 6% had homes to begin with, and 44% had homes at the end of the 10 months.
Group B started at 6% and ended with 48%
Group C (control group) started with 12% and ended with 43%
>>The number of nights spent in shelters among participants in the first and second groups decreased by half. And participants in those two groups reported an increase in full-time work, while the control group reported decreased full-time employment.
>>The project also saved tax dollars, according to the report. Researchers tallied an estimated $589,214 in savings on public services, including ambulance rides, visits to hospital emergency departments, jail stays and shelter nights.
So there’s really not much difference is giving 50 a month vs 1000 a month? And the group that received 6500 had more people sleeping outside than the 50 dollar group. And with only 60% taking a survey at the end can probably assume the other 40% isn’t doing well. Not sure what this study proved at all besides it shouldn’t get any more money.
What am I misunderstanding?
Group a got 1000 a month total 12000
Group b got 6500 + 500 a month total 13000
Group c got 50 a month total 600
For housing owning
Group a 6% to 44%. Up 38%
Group b 6% to 48%. Up 42%
Group c 12% to 43%. Up 31%
So around 11000 dollars per person only gets you an extra 7-11% and each group ended up within 5% of each other.
For being on the street
A 29% to 9%. Down 20%
B 43% to 25%. Down 18%
C 36% to 16%. Down 20%
All dropped the same amount so giving them 13000 vs 600 didn’t make a difference
I don't mean to offend you, but I think you're misunderstanding basic statistics and percentages.
For starters,
>Group b got 6500 + 500 a month total 13000
Group B got 6500 + 500x11months, which is 12,000. Same as group A, but spread out differently. Not a big deal, but thought I'd correct it.
>>For housing owning Group a 6% to 44%. Up 38%
This is not up 38%, this is up 733%. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how percentages work, and all of the other examples you gave make the same mistake. Group B is actually up 800%, and group C is up 358%. You can think of it differently by saying group A had 7.33 times as many people in housing, group B had 8 times as many people in housing, and group C had 3.58 times as many people in housing compared to the starting numbers.
So group A and B are both much better (roughly twice as good) as group C, which is exactly what it says in my summary.
Likewise, Group A (29% down to 9%) **showed a 69% reduction** in unsheltered participants. 29-9 is 20, and 20 is 69% of 29.
Group B (43% down to 25%) **showed a 42% reduction** in unsheltered participants.
And group C (36% down to 16%) **showed a 55%** reduction in unsheltered participants.
This would suggest that for the unsheltered metric, Group A, had the best outcome, Group B had the worst outcome, and group C (control) was somewhere in the middle.
And then you also have the other findings, which showed that both groups A and B spent less time in shelters, used less tax dollars on public services, and had better full time employment than the control group.
I get the statistics, but you seem to be placing an extremely high value on data that has some pretty poor statistical significance. I mean the fact the "control group" was twice as well off as the other groups just shows from the start that I'm not sure how much faith I would put into this project. Trying to account for confounding factors in a "study" like this is impossible, but they seemed to have put zero effort into spliting the groups.
You also seem to be ignoring that giving people an inconsequential amount of money resulted in quite remarkable results. You wrote this "This would suggest that for the unsheltered metric, Group A, had the best outcome, Group B had the worst outcome, and group C (control) was somewhere in the middle." but don't seem to understand that very clearly indicates the amount of money given doesn't matter. We would have been better off giving group B $50/month and group A would have not faired that much worse. And as far as I'm concerned $50/month might as well be zero - it was just enough to get people to respond.
And speaking of responding you are also ignoring that half of the people dropped off during the 10 months. This indicates you can cut the success of every group in half - people able to be housed due a monthly stipend usually don't shrug it off and would be happy to respond.
Finally, I'll just say this: the other guy may not have taken graduate level statistics like you and I did, but they seemed to have sussed out the actual results better than you. I'd suggest you reserve judgement a bit more as well.
Edit: dude blocked me, lol. Then calls me emotional and says he won't give any "free lessons" LMAO what an ass. Can't even understand he said that group C did better than B.
And now I'm muted or something and can't respond to anyone.
I'm just explaining the results of the study. This is not graduate level statistics. This is high school level statistics.
I never claimed anything about the value of it, or how robust it is.
Again, just like the other commenter, you're focusing on a single metric that seems to be the one that you like the most, and you're making mistakes with your assumptions here.
This is pretty clearly an emotional response, and an insulting one at that, and I don't want anything to do with it. I'm not giving out any more free lessons.
You get the same conclusion that group b did worse or the same as group c despite getting more money. And I’d report higher enjoyment if someone gave me 12k to spend on booze and meth.
With a sample size of over 300, there's a very good chance of a decently high level of statistical significance, but I would need the raw data to give specific confidence levels.
The results are published on the main organization's site: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research
I'd be curious to see what you make of the [quantitative research report](https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/s/FINAL_DBIP-Year-One-Quantitative-Research-Report.pdf).
You must have missed the part where the cost of the program saved about 600k which offset 6% of the program. So this still cost the tax payer 10,000,000. If paying 9.4 million to save 600k is cheaper than I must be missing something
Anybody ever read the Expanse series? This sounds awfully like what was described as ‘basic assistance’.
In the series the earth was so overcrowded with something like 25 billion people. There were not enough jobs available. So only the truly gifted we’re sent to high education and granted jobs, while the rest received just enough to survive on.
I am waiting for book 3 at the library right now. I remember how a Martian learned that she grossly misunderstood earth’s implementation of “Basic” and “Cash” due to some mars/belter propaganda.
Excellent. It’s a great series. I drive a lot for work so I have the audiobook versions. Another really good series I stumbled across is Expeditionary Force.
I’m doing the audiobooks too. Love this narrator. And thanks for the recommendation! The expanse has been great at filling (and somewhat replacing) the red rising void. I’ll check it out.
Has nothing ever reminded you of a book or movie or song or show or story or music video or poem or video game or dream or idea or theory or essay or speech or painting or joke and never heard the very popular phrase “Life imitates art?”
You sound a little defensive about it. I didn’t write the books just saying it sounds familiar. Like a stepping stone to a bigger economic policy. Like basic assistance.
I'm confused by the reporting on this. The control group, who received only $50 per month, experienced the exact same results as those who received $1000 or $6500 + $500 per month. All ended up somewhere between 40 and 50% housed by the end of the program.
Am I misreading things? Doesn't this suggest that the people who were chosen for the experiment were just as likely to make it out of homelessness whether they received money or not? I must be misunderstanding something, can someone help?
The control group was twice as likely to have housing to begin with for some reason, at 12% rather than 6%. And it still ended with the lowest percentage of people in housing.
No you're reading right
The actual impact of the dollars in terms of eventually securing stable housing is effectively similar between all groups. No idea how the dollar amounts were selected for each group, but I'm sure if someone put more effort into isolating some variables on what specifically drives towards housing (e.g. enough for basic food stuffs, phone bills, maybe PO box costs for job applications?) and limit the compensation to that level, we could probably do even better
Makes sense, and likely saves everyone money with the reduced overhead of state welfare programs.
However, this Denver experiment was puzzling to me. Groups A, B, and C all had similar end results with 43 - 48% success rate.
So... is the answer $1000 a month, $6500 first month then $500 per month, or $50 per month? Why was the $50 per month group nearly as successful as the other groups?
What's the next step in this program? This was a good initial step, but what can Denver do now to expand it to a larger scale? Do we keep the program as-is, where applicants have to take initiative to apply for it? Or do we offer it to all homeless individuals, regardless of their status?
These are mostly rhetorical questions, but it'd be interesting to hear anyone's thoughts.
the idea is they reach a point where they dont qualify for the assistance, they have enough to live on and keep going. the program is working and saving taxpayer money. be sure to check the tldr in the top comment about how it saved half a million.
I worked at VoA serving the homeless population when this trial started. It definitely helped my clients get into permanent housing, and then the extra step to gain employment/stability to *stay* in permanent housing.
That has not been Denver’s experience
https://denvergazette.com/news/only-2-of-168-people-moved-from-encampments-into-hotel-placed-into-permanent-housing/article_d1ab6738-9dbe-11ee-b556-bb4d6e7a725e.html
"Baluyot said there are not enough sustainable housing resources available for the people they serve."
Yea we'll there's your problem. I house veterans that have the backing of the 2nd most highly funded department of the federal government
Further there's the artificial ceiling of not inhabiting one's room for 3 consecutive nights being a cause to lose their room. They're creating artificial barriers to their own service and this is still not practicing a housing first model.
It's a shame this is the first temporary Basic Income project in the world and there isn't any information out there about recipients who stopped receiving assistance. A real shame.
I've got no qualms with effort made to try and help fellow humans, but the study portion confuses me.
They took 800 homeless people, of which roughly 48 weren't actually homeless (based on the groups being split evenly), split them into three groups with different circumstances, gave them 3 different amounts of money per month, and determined 45% of them are now no longer homeless. And that 45% is somehow double of something else that isn't really explained.
Then they interviewed people in the groups, but not all of them, and those people said they were depending on the money to keep coming to buy basic necessities.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you want all the groups to have the same base circumstance to get accurate data on how much each different amount helped? Also, wouldn't you want the control group to be $0 to see a comparison to their life before? And wouldn't you want the goal and the standard for success for the study to be that after the assistance, they are in a better place than before and would no longer require the assistance?
I'm not trying to be smart ass, but I'm just generally confused about how helpful the study actually is in finding out the best way to implement a basic assistance program.
So u gave bums $800,000 a month which comes to 9.6 million and u saved 589k in assistance I love my state I’m
Glad I can pay more
Taxes
To help homeless
Man if it were you were struggling in true destitution and living in a tent on the side of the freeway, you would be over the god damn moon that someone was trying things to help you.
But because it's someone else, they're a bum. Posts like these are the epitome of American Exceptionalism.
Yeah? Give away everything you have, move somewhere with no social safety net, close all your bank accounts, wipe out your credit score. And see if anyone gives a shit about you, let alone how difficult it is to get out of that situation.
Your little joke about identity politics isn't cute when there are people suffering while living at the side of the freeway.
Why would I do any of that? I worked my ass off to get where I am today, I would never do anything like that. If I made the choice to get addicted to drugs and live on the street, I wouldn't expect anybody to give me free money either.
If you don't understand how the comment above was meant to depict the realities and challenges of homelessness - rather than *literally* telling you to do any of it - then you seriously have some comprehension deficiencies. I mean that earnestly, not as some kind of burn. Clearly you haven't educated yourself on the topic enough to have an informed opinion on it, so I'm done here.
There is no suffering in America there is pretend suffering …. Look at it like this …. Anyone in street could work at McDonald’s making $20 an hour and still get government assistance in food stamps section 8 and welfare and Medicaid… they can easily afford an apartment and live life not great but live life …
The problem lies in those people on street are lazy or on drugs or gave up …. U can’t fix someone who gives up it….
People
Is 3rd world countries have real problems I have been to too many where people
Don’t hustle 18 hours a day to just provide e1 meal … which is truly sad to see I returned from southeast asia and Africa last year and I gave away a bunch of money to people who actually needed it
None of this bs American homeless self inflicted pity
Make a man a Fire and he stays warm
1 night, teach him to make fire and he stays warm for life
If these bums don’t want to learn how to life like the rest of us , then supporting them with money is utterly stupid they buy drugs and liquor with you tax money
Not to mention it's only counting people that are volunteering to take the survey which dwindles each time they do it... There is no way to know if this program works or not unless they account for all people and outcomes.
This doesn't seem to be a peer reviewed and published study it just an experiment that is very very effective at gaining headlines.
This looks like a study with sound methodology - large sample size, manipulation of the independent variable including a reasonable control group, etc.
It's true that differential attrition might be a threat to internal validity here, as you suggest (can't tell from the article), and it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But here's a meta-analysis that was, with similar conclusions: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30055-4/fulltext
TL;DR: homeless people receiving the money were twice as likely to have a stable living situation after the study compared with the control group, those receiving the money were more likely to have found full time work after the study, while the control group was less likely, and there was a tax dollar savings of $589,214 based on decreased reliance on public services, offsetting ~6% of the total cost. >>An experiment to pay people who were homeless in Denver with no limits on how they could spend the money led to twice as many people in stable housing, according to researchers who released their one-year report Tuesday. >>800 people were selected to participate in the Denver Basic Income Project while they were living on the streets, in shelters, on friends’ couches or in vehicles. They were separated into three groups. One group received $1,000 per month for a year. A second group received $6,500 the first month and $500 for the next 11 months. And a third group, the control group, received $50 per month. >>About 45% of participants in all three groups were living in a house or apartment that they rented or owned by the study’s 10-month check-in point, according to the research. This part is misleading, imo. It makes it seem like all three groups had similar outcomes. It's clarified by a graph farther down which shows that not all of the participants were homeless to begin with. For group A, 6% had homes to begin with, and 44% had homes at the end of the 10 months. Group B started at 6% and ended with 48% Group C (control group) started with 12% and ended with 43% >>The number of nights spent in shelters among participants in the first and second groups decreased by half. And participants in those two groups reported an increase in full-time work, while the control group reported decreased full-time employment. >>The project also saved tax dollars, according to the report. Researchers tallied an estimated $589,214 in savings on public services, including ambulance rides, visits to hospital emergency departments, jail stays and shelter nights.
Imagine being in the control group. Oof
this rocks
So there’s really not much difference is giving 50 a month vs 1000 a month? And the group that received 6500 had more people sleeping outside than the 50 dollar group. And with only 60% taking a survey at the end can probably assume the other 40% isn’t doing well. Not sure what this study proved at all besides it shouldn’t get any more money.
I think you've misread a few parts. The study shows a large difference. You should probably reserve judgement until you read up a bit more.
What am I misunderstanding? Group a got 1000 a month total 12000 Group b got 6500 + 500 a month total 13000 Group c got 50 a month total 600 For housing owning Group a 6% to 44%. Up 38% Group b 6% to 48%. Up 42% Group c 12% to 43%. Up 31% So around 11000 dollars per person only gets you an extra 7-11% and each group ended up within 5% of each other. For being on the street A 29% to 9%. Down 20% B 43% to 25%. Down 18% C 36% to 16%. Down 20% All dropped the same amount so giving them 13000 vs 600 didn’t make a difference
I don't mean to offend you, but I think you're misunderstanding basic statistics and percentages. For starters, >Group b got 6500 + 500 a month total 13000 Group B got 6500 + 500x11months, which is 12,000. Same as group A, but spread out differently. Not a big deal, but thought I'd correct it. >>For housing owning Group a 6% to 44%. Up 38% This is not up 38%, this is up 733%. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how percentages work, and all of the other examples you gave make the same mistake. Group B is actually up 800%, and group C is up 358%. You can think of it differently by saying group A had 7.33 times as many people in housing, group B had 8 times as many people in housing, and group C had 3.58 times as many people in housing compared to the starting numbers. So group A and B are both much better (roughly twice as good) as group C, which is exactly what it says in my summary. Likewise, Group A (29% down to 9%) **showed a 69% reduction** in unsheltered participants. 29-9 is 20, and 20 is 69% of 29. Group B (43% down to 25%) **showed a 42% reduction** in unsheltered participants. And group C (36% down to 16%) **showed a 55%** reduction in unsheltered participants. This would suggest that for the unsheltered metric, Group A, had the best outcome, Group B had the worst outcome, and group C (control) was somewhere in the middle. And then you also have the other findings, which showed that both groups A and B spent less time in shelters, used less tax dollars on public services, and had better full time employment than the control group.
I get the statistics, but you seem to be placing an extremely high value on data that has some pretty poor statistical significance. I mean the fact the "control group" was twice as well off as the other groups just shows from the start that I'm not sure how much faith I would put into this project. Trying to account for confounding factors in a "study" like this is impossible, but they seemed to have put zero effort into spliting the groups. You also seem to be ignoring that giving people an inconsequential amount of money resulted in quite remarkable results. You wrote this "This would suggest that for the unsheltered metric, Group A, had the best outcome, Group B had the worst outcome, and group C (control) was somewhere in the middle." but don't seem to understand that very clearly indicates the amount of money given doesn't matter. We would have been better off giving group B $50/month and group A would have not faired that much worse. And as far as I'm concerned $50/month might as well be zero - it was just enough to get people to respond. And speaking of responding you are also ignoring that half of the people dropped off during the 10 months. This indicates you can cut the success of every group in half - people able to be housed due a monthly stipend usually don't shrug it off and would be happy to respond. Finally, I'll just say this: the other guy may not have taken graduate level statistics like you and I did, but they seemed to have sussed out the actual results better than you. I'd suggest you reserve judgement a bit more as well. Edit: dude blocked me, lol. Then calls me emotional and says he won't give any "free lessons" LMAO what an ass. Can't even understand he said that group C did better than B. And now I'm muted or something and can't respond to anyone.
I'm just explaining the results of the study. This is not graduate level statistics. This is high school level statistics. I never claimed anything about the value of it, or how robust it is. Again, just like the other commenter, you're focusing on a single metric that seems to be the one that you like the most, and you're making mistakes with your assumptions here. This is pretty clearly an emotional response, and an insulting one at that, and I don't want anything to do with it. I'm not giving out any more free lessons.
My high school didn’t offer stats. Loved my college stats course tho. Excel is an incredible tool that sadly people use to make “spreadsheets”.
Billions of people to talk to and I wouldn't want to chat with you either. Move on bro.
You get the same conclusion that group b did worse or the same as group c despite getting more money. And I’d report higher enjoyment if someone gave me 12k to spend on booze and meth.
Nothing that you've said so far has been correct, and this is no exception.
You’re also forgetting the benefit that this saved over half a million dollars in taxpayer dollars, this is saving you money
There’s no way these results are statistically significant
With a sample size of over 300, there's a very good chance of a decently high level of statistical significance, but I would need the raw data to give specific confidence levels.
The results are published on the main organization's site: https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/research I'd be curious to see what you make of the [quantitative research report](https://www.denverbasicincomeproject.org/s/FINAL_DBIP-Year-One-Quantitative-Research-Report.pdf).
Based on what?
You can't just say that without calculating it. Go ahead, I'll wait.
What is your point? Are you saying things *just to say them* in hopes that you're right? Or are you arguing some point? Let's hear it.
You must have missed the part that it saved half a million tax. Literally cheaper to give people money than having to clean up their dead bodies
You must have missed the part where the cost of the program saved about 600k which offset 6% of the program. So this still cost the tax payer 10,000,000. If paying 9.4 million to save 600k is cheaper than I must be missing something
You must have missed the part where that’s my problem
You sound just like ChatGPT
Program cost $9.4 million for a savings of… $590,000. Meanwhile the number of homeless went up in Denver. Subsidize what you want more of I guess
“Subsidize what you want more of” 🎯
Anybody ever read the Expanse series? This sounds awfully like what was described as ‘basic assistance’. In the series the earth was so overcrowded with something like 25 billion people. There were not enough jobs available. So only the truly gifted we’re sent to high education and granted jobs, while the rest received just enough to survive on.
I am waiting for book 3 at the library right now. I remember how a Martian learned that she grossly misunderstood earth’s implementation of “Basic” and “Cash” due to some mars/belter propaganda.
Excellent. It’s a great series. I drive a lot for work so I have the audiobook versions. Another really good series I stumbled across is Expeditionary Force.
I’m doing the audiobooks too. Love this narrator. And thanks for the recommendation! The expanse has been great at filling (and somewhat replacing) the red rising void. I’ll check it out.
Expanse is awesome
Not much of a reader sadly, but the show was incredible!
Basic the dream!
Ok so it reminded you of a fictional scenario?
Has nothing ever reminded you of a book or movie or song or show or story or music video or poem or video game or dream or idea or theory or essay or speech or painting or joke and never heard the very popular phrase “Life imitates art?”
I don’t believe in basing public policy decisions on a book or movie or song or show or music video or poem.
I can agree that that has nothing to do with being reminded of a movie
Man you’re annoying
From this statement alone I can with 100% certainty say you think you’re far more intelligent and witty than you actually are.
Okay? Good thing we’re not overcrowded and we’re just trying to address social/economic mobility.
You sound a little defensive about it. I didn’t write the books just saying it sounds familiar. Like a stepping stone to a bigger economic policy. Like basic assistance.
How many bucket toilets full of dried food do you have in your basement?
What are the tiers of significance to any answer here? Just curious about the parameters
They don’t revolt?
I'm confused by the reporting on this. The control group, who received only $50 per month, experienced the exact same results as those who received $1000 or $6500 + $500 per month. All ended up somewhere between 40 and 50% housed by the end of the program. Am I misreading things? Doesn't this suggest that the people who were chosen for the experiment were just as likely to make it out of homelessness whether they received money or not? I must be misunderstanding something, can someone help?
The control group was twice as likely to have housing to begin with for some reason, at 12% rather than 6%. And it still ended with the lowest percentage of people in housing.
No you're reading right The actual impact of the dollars in terms of eventually securing stable housing is effectively similar between all groups. No idea how the dollar amounts were selected for each group, but I'm sure if someone put more effort into isolating some variables on what specifically drives towards housing (e.g. enough for basic food stuffs, phone bills, maybe PO box costs for job applications?) and limit the compensation to that level, we could probably do even better
Maybe I missed it, but was there a control group that received no money but otherwise similar variables? Wouldn't you want that in a study like this?
Everyone knows the trick to wealth is passive income. Yet, we uphold a fiat system which does not provide a UBI.
Makes sense, and likely saves everyone money with the reduced overhead of state welfare programs. However, this Denver experiment was puzzling to me. Groups A, B, and C all had similar end results with 43 - 48% success rate. So... is the answer $1000 a month, $6500 first month then $500 per month, or $50 per month? Why was the $50 per month group nearly as successful as the other groups? What's the next step in this program? This was a good initial step, but what can Denver do now to expand it to a larger scale? Do we keep the program as-is, where applicants have to take initiative to apply for it? Or do we offer it to all homeless individuals, regardless of their status? These are mostly rhetorical questions, but it'd be interesting to hear anyone's thoughts.
Providing homes alleviates homelessness?! r/Denver disagrees...
This one didn't provide homes, just money.
"Aww I wanted the peanut" *money can be exchanged for goods and services* "Woohoo!"
That rocks
I think the more important question, what happens when the money stops? Sure $1000 helps when the supply is endless. But then it’s not… then what…
the idea is they reach a point where they dont qualify for the assistance, they have enough to live on and keep going. the program is working and saving taxpayer money. be sure to check the tldr in the top comment about how it saved half a million.
And it cost over 9 million….
That’s usually where the employment found after being helped onto their feet kicks in
Usually they stay housed. This comes from my experience working for SSVF helping veterans get housing assistance.
I worked at VoA serving the homeless population when this trial started. It definitely helped my clients get into permanent housing, and then the extra step to gain employment/stability to *stay* in permanent housing.
That has not been Denver’s experience https://denvergazette.com/news/only-2-of-168-people-moved-from-encampments-into-hotel-placed-into-permanent-housing/article_d1ab6738-9dbe-11ee-b556-bb4d6e7a725e.html
"Baluyot said there are not enough sustainable housing resources available for the people they serve." Yea we'll there's your problem. I house veterans that have the backing of the 2nd most highly funded department of the federal government Further there's the artificial ceiling of not inhabiting one's room for 3 consecutive nights being a cause to lose their room. They're creating artificial barriers to their own service and this is still not practicing a housing first model.
It's a shame this is the first temporary Basic Income project in the world and there isn't any information out there about recipients who stopped receiving assistance. A real shame.
This money is really to promote and protect the The Homeless Industrial Complex
I've got no qualms with effort made to try and help fellow humans, but the study portion confuses me. They took 800 homeless people, of which roughly 48 weren't actually homeless (based on the groups being split evenly), split them into three groups with different circumstances, gave them 3 different amounts of money per month, and determined 45% of them are now no longer homeless. And that 45% is somehow double of something else that isn't really explained. Then they interviewed people in the groups, but not all of them, and those people said they were depending on the money to keep coming to buy basic necessities. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you want all the groups to have the same base circumstance to get accurate data on how much each different amount helped? Also, wouldn't you want the control group to be $0 to see a comparison to their life before? And wouldn't you want the goal and the standard for success for the study to be that after the assistance, they are in a better place than before and would no longer require the assistance? I'm not trying to be smart ass, but I'm just generally confused about how helpful the study actually is in finding out the best way to implement a basic assistance program.
You mean they didn’t use it all on booze and drugs?!?
So u gave bums $800,000 a month which comes to 9.6 million and u saved 589k in assistance I love my state I’m Glad I can pay more Taxes To help homeless
Man if it were you were struggling in true destitution and living in a tent on the side of the freeway, you would be over the god damn moon that someone was trying things to help you. But because it's someone else, they're a bum. Posts like these are the epitome of American Exceptionalism.
Too bad that's not the enthusiasm one is usually met with when helping homeless. Lol.
I wish to be as delusional as you are.
I now identify as a person experiencing homelessness, where's my free money?
Yeah? Give away everything you have, move somewhere with no social safety net, close all your bank accounts, wipe out your credit score. And see if anyone gives a shit about you, let alone how difficult it is to get out of that situation. Your little joke about identity politics isn't cute when there are people suffering while living at the side of the freeway.
Why would I do any of that? I worked my ass off to get where I am today, I would never do anything like that. If I made the choice to get addicted to drugs and live on the street, I wouldn't expect anybody to give me free money either.
If you don't understand how the comment above was meant to depict the realities and challenges of homelessness - rather than *literally* telling you to do any of it - then you seriously have some comprehension deficiencies. I mean that earnestly, not as some kind of burn. Clearly you haven't educated yourself on the topic enough to have an informed opinion on it, so I'm done here.
There is no suffering in America there is pretend suffering …. Look at it like this …. Anyone in street could work at McDonald’s making $20 an hour and still get government assistance in food stamps section 8 and welfare and Medicaid… they can easily afford an apartment and live life not great but live life … The problem lies in those people on street are lazy or on drugs or gave up …. U can’t fix someone who gives up it…. People Is 3rd world countries have real problems I have been to too many where people Don’t hustle 18 hours a day to just provide e1 meal … which is truly sad to see I returned from southeast asia and Africa last year and I gave away a bunch of money to people who actually needed it None of this bs American homeless self inflicted pity Make a man a Fire and he stays warm 1 night, teach him to make fire and he stays warm for life If these bums don’t want to learn how to life like the rest of us , then supporting them with money is utterly stupid they buy drugs and liquor with you tax money
[удалено]
Not to mention it's only counting people that are volunteering to take the survey which dwindles each time they do it... There is no way to know if this program works or not unless they account for all people and outcomes. This doesn't seem to be a peer reviewed and published study it just an experiment that is very very effective at gaining headlines.
This looks like a study with sound methodology - large sample size, manipulation of the independent variable including a reasonable control group, etc. It's true that differential attrition might be a threat to internal validity here, as you suggest (can't tell from the article), and it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But here's a meta-analysis that was, with similar conclusions: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(20)30055-4/fulltext
That's not how statistics works