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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Contains significantly more information and exact statistics.
“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.”
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.
themafia•1h ago
slater•1h ago
gameman144•1h ago
The self reports might be totally true, but the study isn't as good as it might be.
sxde•1h ago
They were going to get the money for the fixed period unconditionally. That was the point.
Zigurd•58m ago
mikepurvis•1h ago
redleader55•1h ago
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•1h ago
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•1h ago
Because, imo, that's the headline result - 94% is a great success rate.
xn•1h ago
toast0•1h ago
But the real question for me is what happens 6 months to a year after the funding ends.
nkrisc•1h ago
kelseyfrog•1h ago
gtowey•1h ago
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•1h ago
yunnpp•58m ago
rolph•1h ago