[listenallyall]

It isn't that the control group "improved," it's that they entirely caught up. The immediate cash did not have long-term (and we're only defining "long-term" as a few months) benefits when compared to the non-cash recipients. Further, this isn't an anomaly, it is consistent with prior work.

And again, the study ignores 85% of the homeless population, you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population.

Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.

[enragedcacti]

> you simply cannot extrapolate these results from the highly-responsible/functional group to the wider population.

I didn't?

> Finally, the "net societal gain" of $777 was only about 10% of the distributed cash, but ignores the cost of administering such a program and the costs of, and compensation to, the coaches and workshops (the $777 was simply based on "reduced shelter use"). Fully loaded, those costs would almost certainly exceed the modest reported savings.

Half of the cash group didn't receive coaching, and part of the control did, so some of the cost and effect of coaching is priced in. Its unfortunate that the study couldn't include analysis of all four original conditions but its possible the coaching and/or workshops had little effect on outcomes. It would be hard to gauge administrative costs from a small study but cash transfers generally have low administrative costs.

I don't think its a slam dunk but its definitely interesting enough to explore further, either for different levels of intervention or for other parts of the homeless population.