> 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.
From the article:
> The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period.
Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & genderqueer people, as well as those who are young+single parents or are disabled.
Find and read the actual full report for more details though.
Probably because homeless women are more likely than homeless men to access social services, which means they're where the program directors can find them?
it’s a youth program ran by a youth organization. Young people dealing with family problems due to gender identity, sexuality etc. are a very large portion of homeless youth. I would guess transgender people are underrepresented at just 18%.
> 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.
Unfortunately 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.”
I 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.
Most people in a tech business can easily identify a whale hunt. That is, a business where a small number of customers provide such a disproportionate share of revenue that everyone else doesn't matter. But for some reason they fail to see government spending fraud is in fact a whale hunt.
I 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.
OP'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.
Libertarians 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.
It'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.
We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world.
It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute unending chaos.
Totally 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.
There 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.
> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs
This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this.
Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
Yeah but then you cant pay Palantir to throw their "advanced" data analytics engine at the problem. And who will fund the military industrial complex that does the important job of defending the people of America from external threats that are absolutely totally coming for you.
Ostrom provided the solution to the tragedy of the commons: self-organizing, collective governance. It is no coincidence that Agile is a convergent solution to the exact same principles. We were told for decades that the only options are the state or the market, Ostrom proved that false.
But we don't live in an evidence-based world, we live in one shaped by power dynamics. We have the blueprint for collective prosperity, but we choose extraction. In the US, this has gone so far that Christianity has been twisted into a prosperity gospel, a heresy that serves as a moral shield for raw capitalism. It allows the system to pretend that business interests are actually virtues.
The world is in a mess because we ignore the mechanics of the systems we build. Be it capitalism, feudalism, or authoritarian communism, they all fail the same way, they lead to elite overproduction (Turchin).
When you funnel all resources to the very top, you create too many aspiring elites with no productive role to play. They inevitably turn on the system and each other. These systems are mathematically destined to collapse. Ostrom polycentric governance is one of the few ways out.
Heres 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.
So 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.
> “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!
I 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.
I 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.
A 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".
If 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.
> 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.
From the article: > The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period.
Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & genderqueer people, as well as those who are young+single parents or are disabled.
Find and read the actual full report for more details though.
Probably because homeless women are more likely than homeless men to access social services, which means they're where the program directors can find them?
it’s a youth program ran by a youth organization. Young people dealing with family problems due to gender identity, sexuality etc. are a very large portion of homeless youth. I would guess transgender people are underrepresented at just 18%.
This program specifically targeted homeless youth; it seems plausible that the demographics of that segment might differ from the larger community.
> 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.
Consider reading the full final report here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60418acae851e139836c6...
Contains significantly more information and exact statistics.
Unfortunately 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.”
I 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.
Most people in a tech business can easily identify a whale hunt. That is, a business where a small number of customers provide such a disproportionate share of revenue that everyone else doesn't matter. But for some reason they fail to see government spending fraud is in fact a whale hunt.
This is a myth, actual fraud rates on programs like this are tiny - especially if you compare them to the benefits.
Fraud rates on benefits are also absurdly low.
I 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.
I 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.
OP'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.
Like the Whitehouse?
Oh look, it worked again.
Libertarians 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.
It'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.
We're paying ~$50K for every person that's incarcerated, BUT nobody takes into account the income we're losing from their taxes and spending if they were living a sane life in the free world.
It is exceptionally difficult to move people from a life of crime and addiction back into society, though. And I have insane respect for the people that do it full time. I've worked in that space and it's a world of absolute unending chaos.
It’s exceptionally difficult because we largely do not try; recidivism rates in the US are multiples of other countries.
Totally 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.
You 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?
The the whole thing can be summed up as "Paying taxes sucks, but if paying the taxes saves more money down then line, then we should do it"
There 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.
> I don't want to pay taxes that go to social programs
This is such awild thing to say. What do you think the point of society is? Also, there is no way you "Totally agree" if at the same time you are saying this.
Also if you understand the cost of incarceration and the negative social ills of poverty, then being against social programs, broadly, makes no sense.
I'd be happy to pay taxes going to social programs also for my own benefit: not only as a form of insurance, but for getting a more pleasant day to day experience - like not having to step over homeless, less insecurity in darker areas, not having to live imprisoned in gated communities, and so on. A man can dream...
Yeah but then you cant pay Palantir to throw their "advanced" data analytics engine at the problem. And who will fund the military industrial complex that does the important job of defending the people of America from external threats that are absolutely totally coming for you.
Ostrom provided the solution to the tragedy of the commons: self-organizing, collective governance. It is no coincidence that Agile is a convergent solution to the exact same principles. We were told for decades that the only options are the state or the market, Ostrom proved that false.
But we don't live in an evidence-based world, we live in one shaped by power dynamics. We have the blueprint for collective prosperity, but we choose extraction. In the US, this has gone so far that Christianity has been twisted into a prosperity gospel, a heresy that serves as a moral shield for raw capitalism. It allows the system to pretend that business interests are actually virtues.
The world is in a mess because we ignore the mechanics of the systems we build. Be it capitalism, feudalism, or authoritarian communism, they all fail the same way, they lead to elite overproduction (Turchin).
When you funnel all resources to the very top, you create too many aspiring elites with no productive role to play. They inevitably turn on the system and each other. These systems are mathematically destined to collapse. Ostrom polycentric governance is one of the few ways out.
Heres 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.
So 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.
I agree, further study is warranted. They should do it again with a larger cohort for longer and with more objective measures.
Larger 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.
self reported results that may be confirmed, vs subjective self reports such as, i feel happy and motivated now.
> “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!
Those sneaky freeloaders, materially improving their lives and futures just to “prove” that social programs work.
And then they went back to homelessness. Those social workers running the survey won't even notice how poisoned the data set is.
Yeah, couldn't possibly be that there were any actually good results coming from this. That's just an impossibility.
I 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.
Maybe 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.
TBF 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.
I 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.
A 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".
If 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.
Hold 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.
What 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.
It could be. How did the control group do?