Interestingly:
People who received $1k/month: 44% housed
People who received a $6500 lump sum followed by $500/month: 48% housed
The control group who received $50/month: 43% housed
People who received $1k/month: 44% housed
People who received a $6500 lump sum followed by $500/month: 48% housed
The control group who received $50/month: 43% housed
While the findings outlined in this report indicate overall improvement for DBIP participants across many targeted outcomes, minimal differences were observed when comparing outcomes across the different payment groups. This may suggest that consistent cash assistance of even $50 can improve many aspects of one’s life. Or, as we heard through member checking, it was the aggregate of the whole DIBP program that made a difference for individuals. This means the trust conveyed by delivering guaranteed income, attention by community based organizational partner staff, phones and phone plans, and connections.
I think this effect is seen a lot in various psychological and well-being studies, I'm not sure if it has a name. But basically, if someone demonstrates they are interested in your well-being and stays in touch with you, it can often have an outsized positive effect on one's life, especially when connection and support have been difficult to find.
Then there's the other group, people with severe mental illness, drug addiction, who aren't rational and are chronically homeless because they basically can't function in society. You could give them as much money as you want and it wouldn't make much of a difference. What they need is to be put in some kind of permanent care.
The effects on employment were much more pronounced than housing. The $1000/mo group went from 15% employment to 37%, and the $50/mo group had no change in employment at all.
It makes some sense: employment is probably more elastic to changes in financial status than housing. Just being able to afford transportation or a bit of occasional child care can immediately alter one's employment prospects.
other than that, agree. sure looks like no real effect. i wonder what % housed would be after a year for people who didn't even get $50/month? it's probably also the same. for the reasons you state.
We should target families and individuals who just lost a job and became homeless, looking for work and a place to live. Then go down the list from there.
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.)
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.
A) 1K/month (or the equivalent thereof) is not nearly enough to really make a difference in terms of increasing prospects to finding housing and the 3 groups could have just as well received $50/$51/$52 a month for all that it's worth. Or,
B) There's a roughly ~50/50 split of people who do not want to be homeless, who will do whatever they can do get themselves housed, and the other group that just don't care/unable/unwilling to find housing regardless of money, as the money will be used for other things in stead of finding housing.
”Logic” tells me a 20x monthly income increase would lead to more than a 1% increase in housed population.
6.5x more than _that_ only led to a 5% increase in housed population.
Sigh. Everything sucks, doesn’t it?
It’s just evidence. You wanted a clean solution and you got evidence that the thing you thought solved the problem doesn’t have the effect you’d like.
some might have a cellphone, but why bother answering questions for someone who isn't going to help you?
E.g: If you have $500/month, you can afford to pay your buddy $200/month to crash on his couch. Now you have reliable access to a shower, an address to put on your resumes, a bit of cash to thrift a suit/dress clothes and a beater laptop, and it's way easier to get a job.
Most of the jobs in the world don't rely on Zoom interviews and email. You'll get a phone call and have to physically go interview with someone. Really hard to hide looking and smelling like a mess in that scenario.
* lockers. most places claim "24 hours only" but aren't so great about that, and many will let you rent lockers for 24/7 storage for trivial money.
* decent toilets, sinks, mirrors. it's hard to shower, shave, and shit in a gas station bathroom.
* you can wash clothes. gyms with a pool often have drying equipment (like the little centrifuges for bathing suits). also saunas and blowdryers. like if you only have 3 pairs of undies, you can give 2 of em a good wash and spin them mostly dry, then hang em in a locker.
* 24/7 access. hang out or workout at night, and then quietly grab a nap somewhere (mostly) secure. clean your gear, take a shower, get right, without a ton of people around. hit a couple of reps for arms and shoulders while you're at it.
* most gyms I've been to often have powerbars or other cheap meal replacements / proteins in vending machines as well, which may be your only option if you're down to < $5 a day for food
Hardly ideal, but it fit his goals.