Can you check figure 8 on a smaller timeframe? I wonder if UBI is getting them out of homelessness faster.
These figures indicate, to me, some 'hard' spots created by our existing systems that aren't being surpassed by the level of basic income provided by the study. Over 6 months, these non-chronic homeless are reaching these points anyway. But it's likely that Groups A and B are getting there faster, and the existing charts are hiding this.
It's quite likely that the UBI used in this study isn't high enough for people to attain food security or financial security past a certain point, but it's enough to pull them up off the streets faster and more efficiently than without.
For example, your charts are averaged over 6 months as bar graphs. What about a line chart that compares on a daily basis how many members of each group were homeless on each day? I'd hypothesize that chart would show that members of group A and B became housed sooner than members of group C - and if your presentation of the target group being those that were going to be rescued from homelessness anyway (non-chronic) is accurate, then we see value in UBI by bringing groups A and B off the streets sooner!
Also, we're not comparing the level of quality of housing here, and we're relying heavily on self reporting (especially in your last two figures) as opposed to objective measurements. Might groups A and B have higher standards of living, even if their self reported financial security and food security is the same? Perhaps they're still maladjusted to having security, or aren't yet perceiving the security they've acquired in this short timeframe. We aren't objectively measuring those things in these results, I think that's a blind spot.
I hope the final study addresses these points though, because I agree that it's important to be transparent about the sample contents and the results of the study.
I will never understand those who say "Gee, they only selected homeless people with a lack of money to give money to, instead of homeless people with that problem and drug problems."
It's clear from this experiment and other experiments like it, that for a large percentage of the homeless population, they only need money to not be homeless. Providing basic income would therefore help all of those people.
The people who remain homeless after they have basic income are then also much easier to help because we know they have problems aside from money problems. We can then more easily help them because we more easily see who they are.
And don't give me this, "Gee, homeless people are only homeless for awhile anyway" crap. It's also been shown that having basic income can prevent a lot of homelessness from ever happening, because again, for many people, it's just a lack of money problem.
Homelessness is extremely expensive. If we can spend less by just giving people money than spending on everything that surrounds and emerges from homelessness, then we should do that.
Your conclusions aren't actually shown by this experiment. As I describe in the post the active control does about as well on many, or all (depending on how you define "about as well"), of the outcome metrics as the groups getting basic income. The group is selected, not to be representative of the homeless population, but, as you say, to represent the people who just need money to not be homeless - but it doesn't seem to be a tremendous help compared to the control.
Your final idea is that we can spend less by just giving people money - but, as I describe in the post, that's actually not in evidence here. There was no cost-benefit analysis at all and it's not clear if we would be spending less or more using this method.
Perhaps you're aware of other research that defends the points you are making here. If so, please point me in that direction - I would be happy to read more and learn.
Can you check figure 8 on a smaller timeframe? I wonder if UBI is getting them out of homelessness faster.
These figures indicate, to me, some 'hard' spots created by our existing systems that aren't being surpassed by the level of basic income provided by the study. Over 6 months, these non-chronic homeless are reaching these points anyway. But it's likely that Groups A and B are getting there faster, and the existing charts are hiding this.
It's quite likely that the UBI used in this study isn't high enough for people to attain food security or financial security past a certain point, but it's enough to pull them up off the streets faster and more efficiently than without.
For example, your charts are averaged over 6 months as bar graphs. What about a line chart that compares on a daily basis how many members of each group were homeless on each day? I'd hypothesize that chart would show that members of group A and B became housed sooner than members of group C - and if your presentation of the target group being those that were going to be rescued from homelessness anyway (non-chronic) is accurate, then we see value in UBI by bringing groups A and B off the streets sooner!
Also, we're not comparing the level of quality of housing here, and we're relying heavily on self reporting (especially in your last two figures) as opposed to objective measurements. Might groups A and B have higher standards of living, even if their self reported financial security and food security is the same? Perhaps they're still maladjusted to having security, or aren't yet perceiving the security they've acquired in this short timeframe. We aren't objectively measuring those things in these results, I think that's a blind spot.
I hope the final study addresses these points though, because I agree that it's important to be transparent about the sample contents and the results of the study.
I will never understand those who say "Gee, they only selected homeless people with a lack of money to give money to, instead of homeless people with that problem and drug problems."
It's clear from this experiment and other experiments like it, that for a large percentage of the homeless population, they only need money to not be homeless. Providing basic income would therefore help all of those people.
The people who remain homeless after they have basic income are then also much easier to help because we know they have problems aside from money problems. We can then more easily help them because we more easily see who they are.
And don't give me this, "Gee, homeless people are only homeless for awhile anyway" crap. It's also been shown that having basic income can prevent a lot of homelessness from ever happening, because again, for many people, it's just a lack of money problem.
Homelessness is extremely expensive. If we can spend less by just giving people money than spending on everything that surrounds and emerges from homelessness, then we should do that.
Your conclusions aren't actually shown by this experiment. As I describe in the post the active control does about as well on many, or all (depending on how you define "about as well"), of the outcome metrics as the groups getting basic income. The group is selected, not to be representative of the homeless population, but, as you say, to represent the people who just need money to not be homeless - but it doesn't seem to be a tremendous help compared to the control.
Your final idea is that we can spend less by just giving people money - but, as I describe in the post, that's actually not in evidence here. There was no cost-benefit analysis at all and it's not clear if we would be spending less or more using this method.
Perhaps you're aware of other research that defends the points you are making here. If so, please point me in that direction - I would be happy to read more and learn.