news Denver gave homeless people $1K per month - nearly 50% of them secured housing

[Virgos Groove]

Quote

A yearlong Denver program testing unconditional cash payments for people experiencing homelessness showed that twice as many participants secured stable housing, according to a report released one year after the experiment began.

Quote

The Denver Basic Income Project provided financial assistance to over 800 people. Participants were divided into three groups:

• Group A received $1,000 per month for 12 months.
• Group B received a one-time payment of $6,500 followed by $500 monthly payments for 11 months.
• Group C, the control group, received $50 per month.

Quote

The one-year report of the Denver project, released on June 18, revealed promising outcomes. After receiving monthly payments for 10 months, 45% of participants secured stable housing. The program also led to fewer emergency room visits, hospital stays, nights spent in shelters and jail incarcerations. The city estimates cost savings of $589,214 due to reduced use of public services.

Yahoo Finance

 

Who would've thought giving people some financial security would help them in life? And that depriving people of that makes it harder for them to get back on their feet??? I'm SHOCKED, I tell you!

[selena_lavigne]

This is an amazing thing!!! 

Edited July 9 by selena_lavigne

[Sannie]

Wow... you mean to tell me people who are homeless are usually in that condition because they don't have money? I was told by conservatives it's because they're lazy and drug addicts and that "money" can't fix issues like this...

 

We could live in a country where our gov't works for us like this, but unfortunately conservatives and leftists (same thing) would rather Trump win so he can enact a genocide on every vulnerable population, including homeless people.

[DAP]

You mean to tell me giving people money directly is more effective than a means tested service that keeps the funds away from them? Who would have thought.

 

[Gaia]

This sort of this is always complicated though. You don't want to incentivize people to be "homeless" to get free money. So unless it has appropriate checks and balances to ensure it's not being taken advantage of, it's not something that could be widespread 

[TaggedGalaxy]

And yet the Supreme Court fools want to criminalize the homeless and prosecute them while also allowing the convicted criminal to run for President and giving him full immunity to do whatever he wants

 

[Digitalism]

I think this works because it was for only 12 months so people know they have to get their sh together in a year or they'll be back on the streets. 

Something like this was applied in my country and some people eventually decided they had no reason to work because of the money they received. After decades of this the government didn't have enough money to give it to everyone and the same people that loved the left government that gave them the money ended up voting for a far right president. 

It's funny how some of these things have already been applied in a lot of countries and some people still fail to see how they may end up failing.

[Europe]

Is this to get everyone universal basic income?

[JoeAg]

I live in Denver and this feels incredibly inaccurate. it's overall a really stressful place to live in poverty and I've known so many homeless people here who've been treated worse here than wherever they've been from in the midwest. but lemme read more, i'm always willing to be educated further on the matter. 

[JoeAg]

oh I see

 

this is good  but this city still has a VERY long way to go. the country does too, of course. but the job market in this city in particular is SO beyond abysmal and that's kinda what affects the quality of life the most for homeless people and people living below the poverty line here tbh

[beautiful player]

In other words, most people did not secure housing.

[Virgos Groove]

3 minutes ago, beautiful player said:

In other words, most people did not secure housing.

So you support a Housing First program, where the state secures an apartment for homeless people? I agree!

 

[family.guy123]

"Twice as many" compared to what? Are they saying there was a control group that didn't receive funding and that only 22.5% of them were able to secure housing in the same period? 

[on the line]

I generally support a guaranteed income for all, not just the homeless, but there's a lot of interesting data that came from this study.

 

One particularly interesting aspect is that the control group (received $50/mo) was nearly just as stable as those who did receive the full 1k per month. Though I did want to dig in a bit further as 1k in Denver rent or real estate doesn't go far, and the researchers do count as living with family as being "stably housed," which I do have an issue with.

 

[Smarticle]

Does 1k a month cover rent in Denver

[makeme]

5 minutes ago, Smarticle said:

Does 1k a month cover rent in Denver

With roommates or renting a room thats probably it

[evermore.]

Unfortunately, these results are misleading since the control group ($50/month) had the same outcome as the $1000/month group. The statistical significance comes from within-group differences rather than between-group differences

Edited July 9 by evermore.

[Triton]

3 hours ago, Digitalism said:

I think this works because it was for only 12 months so people know they have to get their sh together in a year or they'll be back on the streets. 

Something like this was applied in my country and some people eventually decided they had no reason to work because of the money they received. After decades of this the government didn't have enough money to give it to everyone and the same people that loved the left government that gave them the money ended up voting for a far right president. 

It's funny how some of these things have already been applied in a lot of countries and some people still fail to see how they may end up failing.

I don't think they would expect it to continue. A 12 month period to switch your life around is a good period.  
 

But then again, $1K in Denver is nothing. People are moving there left and right.
 

Obviously this isn't going to get people in a great luxury house and might need roommates but it it's a good push from the being in the street especially in the cold winters there. 

[Bloo]

4 hours ago, Gaia said:

This sort of this is always complicated though. You don't want to incentivize people to be "homeless" to get free money. So unless it has appropriate checks and balances to ensure it's not being taken advantage of, it's not something that could be widespread 

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[If U Seek Amy]

5 hours ago, Gaia said:

This sort of this is always complicated though. You don't want to incentivize people to be "homeless" to get free money. So unless it has appropriate checks and balances to ensure it's not being taken advantage of, it's not something that could be widespread 

Exactly. I wish we lived in a world where we could all just not do anything and be given a free life, but it's not realistic. Why would anyone work when they can just be homeless and get it for free? Needs a ton of restrictions and refinement, but it's a start to help people for sure. Also, sadly if you are in a state that does it you're gonna have to pay extra taxes to support it which not everyone is gonna wanna do. Especially when they're already paying so much for housing as is only for someone else to get it for free

[spree]

4 hours ago, Smarticle said:

Does 1k a month cover rent in Denver

if you had 6 roommates. 

[Communion]

 

8 hours ago, Digitalism said:

I think this works because it was for only 12 months so people know they have to get their sh together in a year or they'll be back on the streets. 

Something like this was applied in my country and some people eventually decided they had no reason to work because of the money they received. After decades of this the government didn't have enough money to give it to everyone and the same people that loved the left government that gave them the money ended up voting for a far right president. 

It's funny how some of these things have already been applied in a lot of countries and some people still fail to see how they may end up failing.

 

7 hours ago, beautiful player said:

In other words, most people did not secure housing.

 

6 hours ago, on the line said:

I generally support a guaranteed income for all, not just the homeless, but there's a lot of interesting data that came from this study.

 

One particularly interesting aspect is that the control group (received $50/mo) was nearly just as stable as those who did receive the full 1k per month. Though I did want to dig in a bit further as 1k in Denver rent or real estate doesn't go far, and the researchers do count as living with family as being "stably housed," which I do have an issue with.

 

 

4 hours ago, evermore. said:

Unfortunately, these results are misleading since the control group ($50/month) had the same outcome as the $1000/month group. The statistical significance comes from within-group differences rather than between-group differences

Some of these people read as purposefully dishonesty and cruel.

 

The actual details of the study show that the 2 experimental groups were able to find housing *faster* and find work easier.

Those given only $50 actually struggled more to find employment and keep it than those who were in the two experimental groups:

 

Quote

About 45% of participants in all three groups were living in a house or apartment that they rented or owned by the study's 10-month check-in point, according to the research. The number of nights spent in shelters among participants in the first and second groups decreased by half. And participants in those two groups reported an increase in full-time work, while the control group reported decreased full-time employment.

 

It also looked at a wide definition of unhoused people, including people who were living in hotels, transitional shelters, or living with people but at a residence that was not permanent, etc. A subpopulation analysis was done for specifically *unsheltered* people - those sleeping outside or in abandoned buildings - and found the $1k group saw the biggest advancements and increased rates of housing attainment.

 

Quote

DBIP intentionally adopted a broad definition of homelessness which includes individuals without fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, which includes the following: living in motels, hotels, camping grounds due to lack of alternative accommodations, sharing housing due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reason, living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, living in emergency shelters or transitional shelters, people whose nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation.

 

We define an "Unsheltered" sleep location as an abandoned building, a Safe Outdoor Space, a vehicle, or outside.

 

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/6671a15eec7a812dee108e7c/1718722914185/FINAL_DBIP+Year+One+Quantitative+Research+Report.pdf

 

Edited July 10 by Communion

[Gaia]

5 hours ago, Bloo said:

I hope you're being sarcastic.

No but it's common sense and as I said, it's nuanced and not black and white.

 

By "homeless" they're not just saying people on the street, they're also including people crashing on family and friends couches who while they don't actually own a home, are not on the street. 
 

Most people when they read "homeless" are going to think you're talking about people on the street, so it feels misleading. 
 

Give people free money and they can afford to spend money, that's no ******* ****  but this would not solve the problem because the article literally says their stress increased towards the end likely because the payments were ending. Getting housing while getting free money isn't the problem. It's keeping the housing once the free money ends because they're no longer homeless. Do you not see how that inherently is going to not solve anything if it doesn't actual fix the issue of them not having stable earned income  
 

 

Edited July 10 by Gaia

[Bloo]

11 minutes ago, Gaia said:

No but it's common sense and as I said, it's nuanced and not black and white.

 

By "homeless" they're not just saying people on the street, they're also including people crashing on family and friends couches who while they don't actually own a home, are not on the street. 
 

Most people when they read "homeless" are going to think you're talking about people on the street, so it feels misleading. 
 

Give people free money and they can afford to spend money, that's no ******* ****  but this would not solve the problem because the article literally says their stress increased towards the end likely because the payments were ending. Getting housing while getting free money isn't the problem. It's keeping the housing once the free money ends because they're no longer homeless. Do you not see how that inherently is going to not solve anything if it doesn't actual fix the issue of them not having stable earned income  
 

 

Your original claim of people pretending to be homeless to get money is absurd. You could have addressed the nuance of the policy without leading with such an insane claim. 

[Communion]

32 minutes ago, Gaia said:

hey're also including people crashing on family and friends couches who while they don't actually own a home, are not on the street. 

What do you call it when someone does not have a place of residence and thus has to sleep on people's couches?

 

Some of you frame your contrarianism as searching for nuance but some of these replies reveal people who have no understanding or care for nuance.

 

Do you know what it's like to have nowhere to call home that you're literally hoping to be able to sleep on someone's couch? Do you understand what that does to someone psychologically to not have a bed to lay down at night and feel safe in? They're not counting people couch-surfing because they're traveling or out of town for fun. 

 

It's just deeply cynical and veering into insidious to promote conspiracies about people faking homelessness in response to a study that shows guaranteeing income literally greatly helps aid those experiencing the harshest forms of homelessness and largely helps those experiencing housing instability have some type of economic stability.