> 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.
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’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%.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
threethirtytwo|29 days ago
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.
luafox|29 days ago
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.
duskwuff|29 days ago
jmalicki|29 days ago
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.
3rodents|29 days ago
bandrami|29 days ago
kayfox|29 days ago
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.
gamblor956|29 days ago
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.
insane_dreamer|28 days ago
tbrownaw|29 days ago
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.
luafox|29 days ago
Contains significantly more information and exact statistics.
3rodents|29 days ago
“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.”
honeycrispy|29 days ago
bo0tzz|29 days ago
Zigurd|29 days ago
treetalker|29 days ago
insane_dreamer|28 days ago
that's a pretty big (and likely untrue) claim
esseph|29 days ago
Nekhrimah|29 days ago
readthenotes1|28 days ago
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
owenbrown|28 days ago
Something that balanced empowering participants and protecting their privacy, while also protecting them from financial abuse.
unknown|29 days ago
[deleted]
another_twist|29 days ago
Antibabelic|29 days ago
gameman144|29 days ago
insane_dreamer|28 days ago
Adiqq|29 days ago
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.
aaaalone|29 days ago
[deleted]
RiceNBananas|29 days ago
[deleted]
themafia|29 days ago
nkrisc|29 days ago
gtowey|29 days 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!
rolph|29 days ago
slater|29 days ago
fwip|29 days ago
Because, imo, that's the headline result - 94% is a great success rate.