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.
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.
The books "Evicted" helped me understand all of this much better. I highly recommend it to anyone who has a hard time comprehending why "just pull yourself up" is often BS
How'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
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.
> 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.
True, but most straight male homeless individuals are homeless because of substance abuse, so giving them money doesn't address the cause of their homelessness in any way.
The targeted populations were primarily homeless for economic reasons, so the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the simplest/most efficient solution was just to give them some money.
Your comparing statistics for homeless adults to homeless youth.
From my experience being a homeless youth 20 years ago, LGBTQ individuals make up a large share of homeless youth, I would guess more than 50% at the time.
There may be less gay or lesbian homeless youth these days, but transgender youth may have grown.
Something noone else has said here, and I don't know the degree to which it is true for this study, but good study design generally includes stratified sampling.
e.g. if there are subpopulations whose experience differs a lot, you want to have those populations overrepresented in your study to reduce variance of study.
It was a small pilot (120 people) -- given the number of homeless in Portland alone, it wouldn't be difficult to find 60 who were women even if women make up a smallish percentage of overall homeless.
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.
> 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.
18 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 990 ms ] threadIt 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
that's a pretty big (and likely untrue) claim
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.
The targeted populations were primarily homeless for economic reasons, so the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the simplest/most efficient solution was just to give them some money.
From my experience being a homeless youth 20 years ago, LGBTQ individuals make up a large share of homeless youth, I would guess more than 50% at the time.
There may be less gay or lesbian homeless youth these days, but transgender youth may have grown.
e.g. if there are subpopulations whose experience differs a lot, you want to have those populations overrepresented in your study to reduce variance of study.
This is basic statistics.
Contains significantly more information and exact statistics.
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.
Something that balanced empowering participants and protecting their privacy, while also protecting them from financial abuse.