NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE {A} merica’s homelessness paradigm has been completely upended — at least that’s what you would think from reading a slate of recent headlines.
Last month, the Guardian proclaimed, “Canada study debunks stereotypes of homeless people’s spending habits.” A headline in CBC Canada cited the same study, saying that “a B.C. research project gave homeless people $7,500 each — the results were ‘beautifully surprising.’” Even the Washington Post picked up the story, with one headline reading, “Homeless people were given lump sums of cash. Their spending defied stereotypes.”
Before policy-makers go crazy enacting cash-transfer policies in the hopes of ending homelessness for good, they ought to take a closer look at the conditions under which the study was performed, which make it bad science at best and intentionally deceiving at worst.
The study in question — from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences — gave cash payments to homeless people and compared them after a year with similar homeless individuals who hadn’t received payments. Results showed that paid participants experienced positive outcomes with little to no downsides. They did not spend more money on drugs or alcohol and stayed in stable housing for longer than those who received no payment. The results may seem straightforward, but investigation into the participant-selection process reveals a different story.
When recruiting participants from shelters in Canada, study designers used a blind survey to exclude anyone with a history of drug or alcohol abuse. They also removed anyone who had been homeless for longer than two years. This excluded those whose homelessness was due to the most serious and chronic conditions. After this screening, the authors then lost track of half of the remaining participants. Those who fell off the radar were more likely to have underlying factors that complicated their situation.
From the original pool of 732 people — who were recruited from shelters and weren’t living on the streets — they ended up giving cash payments to only 50 people. While this group of 50 did apparently benefit from cash transfers, they represented a sliver of the general homeless population — a far cry from the sweeping headlines.
In other words, study designers handpicked a tiny group who would most benefit from this program, and so it’s not surprising that the outcomes were positive. But this selection process cannot be replicated in a government program. Far from demonstrating the efficacy of centralized cash-transfer programs, the study actually shows why such programs cannot work on a larger scale.
Participants didn’t know that their survey answers would determine whether they would receive $7,500. Had they known this, few would have accurately self-reported. A study without a selection bias built into its design would surely yield different results. The study inadvertently shows the opposite of its designers’ intent: that it requires administrative backbends to ensure that cash payments go to the people who will use them effectively.
While apparently designed to influence national policy, this study instead distracts from the complex set of issues driving the homelessness crisis today, such as mental health, substance abuse, and housing supply.
These overlapping crises require real thought and complex solutions, but any “solution” that doesn’t provide increased social capital and interpersonal connection is doomed to fail. We need to dig more carefully into the actual problems people face. Any analysis that seeks to oversimplify or gloss over the reality of the situation is a cruel one.