Current Events > Guess What Happened After Denver Gave $1,000 to Homeless People?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/denver-experimented-giving-people-1-103001001.html

It doesn't necessarily buy happiness, but both personal experience and academic research suggest that when people have more money, they're more likely to lead a pleasant life. That's the premise of a social experiment in Denver, where for the past few months several hundred of the city's most vulnerable people have been given cash with no strings attached.

The results, so far: Participants who were sleeping on the streets at the start of the experiment now with more money in their pockets said they were feeling safer, experiencing better mental health, and enjoying access to more stable and welcoming living arrangements.

Mark Donovan, the founder and executive director of the Denver Basic Income Project, told Insider he was "very encouraged" by the findings.

"Many participants reported that they have used the money to pay off debt, repair their car, secure housing, and enroll in a course," he said. "These are all paths that could eventually lead participants out of poverty and allow them to be less dependent on social support programs."

Donovan founded the Denver Basic Income Project in 2021. An entrepreneur, he made his money off Wooden Ships a clothing company that specializes in sweaters for women and an investment in Tesla that skyrocketed during the coronavirus pandemic. He used some of that cash, and a $2 million contribution from the city, to begin distributing money to others last year.

Commentary on homelessness often focuses on mental health and addiction, perceived as the chief drivers of a spike in people sleeping on the streets in cities from Sacramento, California, to Jacksonville, Florida. But the Pew Charitable Trust wrote in a recent analysis that research had "consistently found that homelessness in an area is driven by housing costs."

Six months in, most who received money from the project were better off, and significantly so, researchers at the University of Denver's Center for Housing and Homelessness Research found.

How Denver's universal basic income plan worked
Last October, more than 800 people were enrolled in the basic-income plan, but they didn't all receive the same stipend. There are three groups: One receives $1,000 a month for a year; another receives $6,500 up front and then $500 a month from there; and another gets just $50 a month.

While cautioning that this was only an interim six-month follow-up for what is a yearlong program, the researchers nonetheless found stark and encouraging changes in participants' material conditions. Those who received $500 a month or more had seen the biggest gains. At the start, fewer than 10% said they were living in their own home or apartment, while at the six-month point, more than a third said they lived in their own housing.

The guaranteed income also dramatically reduced visible homelessness. When the initiative began, some 6% of the people in the $1,000-a-month group said they were sleeping outside; the number fell to zero six months later. The group that received a large lump sum similarly reported a decline from 10% sleeping outdoors to 3%. Even those who received just $50 moved indoors, to a degree, with the outdoor-sleeping rate declining to 4% from 8%.

Where were people going? Many, actually, to their own place. In the group receiving $1,000 a month, 34% of participants said they resided in their own home or apartment, up from just 8% a half-year earlier. For all groups, the number who said they were sleeping in shelters was more than halved, and all reported increased feelings of safety in their current sleep location. Overall mental health also seemed to improve, though the group that received $50 reported slightly more stress and anxiety than before and a little less hope.

Other cities are also trying UBI
That material gains were seen among all groups suggests at least some of the improvements may be attributable to something other than cash, such as increased access to other services during the study period (the researchers don't speculate). And the study also relied on participants self-reporting their situations in exchange for payments of up to $30.

But the findings track with other cities' experiences.

In San Francisco, a study of 14 people receiving $500 a month found two-thirds of those who were homeless at the start had found permanent housing six months later. Smaller cities, such as Santa Fe, New Mexico, have also experimented with cash payments, as have rural areas, including in upstate New York. Philadelphia is even extending the concept to other vulnerable groups, including people who are pregnant.

Outside the United States, other countries are also finding the carrot of direct cash assistance to be a more effective means of addressing certain social ills than either the stick of policing or the patronization of more traditional assistance programs, where aid comes with strings.

Vancouver, British Columbia, recently gave about $5,600 to a group of more than a hundred people experiencing poverty.

"Housing improved, it reduced homelessness, it increased spending and savings over time, and was a net savings for government and taxpayers," Jiaying Zhao, an associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, told The Guardian.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/5/4/AAOkKdAAELtq.jpg

Treat humans in a society as fellow humans and not rats, and everything improves. I am shocked.

This is encouraging. As expensive as Denver is Im surprised so many were able to get off the streets so quick with such a limited amount. I have multiple friends there and while housing is going up everywhere its getting really bad there. Im shocked $500 a month made that big of an impact in San Francisco. Hopefully these individuals will have a dependable revenue stream when this money runs out.

And unfortunately long term I feel like housing is just going to keep getting worse and worse so we need to help combat the core issue because we arent just going to be able to help solve the issue by giving everyone stipends to help with housing.

Then it'll be quietly abandoned when the grant money runs out and there's no popular will to fund it otherwise.
every time.

This is going to upset the chuds.

Vancouver, British Columbia, recently gave about $5,600 to a group of more than a hundred people experiencing poverty.

So <$56 each? Or am I misunderstanding?

ReiRei89 posted...

This is going to upset the chuds.

No, they'll just pivot to mUH taX DOllArS! WuT abOUt mE! WHy haTE vEtERaNs

ReiRei89 posted...

This is going to upset the chuds.

Market it to chuds.
"It's cheaper than welfare and prison, and if someone starves anyway it's his own damn fault"

There are people who will tell you can't simply give the unhoused housing and jobs. But you can.

ReiRei89 posted...

This is going to upset the chuds.

It's not just the chuds that are against this.

B...b....but....
That's socialism!!!

CommonStar posted...

It's not just the chuds that are against this.

wait, what?
"both sides" do love those strings, I guess...

Mistere_Man posted...

So <$56 each? Or am I misunderstanding?

$5,600 lump sum to each person. Not $5,600 divided among the group.

Isolated incident #84630527436515415

We will see what the new Denver mayor does, he said homelessness was his #1 issue. Meanwhile the encampments are taking over the entire downtown area, the most prominent gay bar in the city just shut down because it got overrun w/ homeless:

https://tinyurl.com/2s4zpnm5

With heavy hearts we announce that, effective immediately, Triangle Denver is closing indefinitely thanks primarily to the ever-expanding encampments which have surrounded and suffocated the businesses in our neighborhood, the email stated.

The survey of over 500 people found 75% of customers visited less in 2023 than in 2022.

Answering the question How have each of the following factors influenced your interest in visiting the Triangle positively (you wanted to visit more) or negatively (discouraged you from visiting) in the past year, 61.4% of respondents said homeless encampments/safety concerns was a negative influence, according to a screengrab of the survey results.

We have been injecting funds regularly into the bar just to keep the doors open while pressuring the media and the city to take corrective action which finally occurred on September 27th, the email states. For one single afternoon, we had our neighborhood back. Less than 24 hours later, camps returned, and despite our pleas, have seen no action from the city to stop the re-entrenchment.

We cant ask our guests or staff to continue to endure this health and safety nightmare. Our well of patience and resources has run dry.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The root problem with UBI becomes obvious, when it's ludicrously simplified.
If two people decide that they both get $1000 each every month, they have to come up with $2000 every month between them.

CommonStar posted...

It's not just the chuds that are against this.

Mostly is.

The right: "Do something that works already"

Also the right: "No not like that"

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

We will see what the new Denver mayor does, he said homelessness was his #1 issue. Meanwhile the encampments are taking over the entire downtown area, the most prominent gay bar in the city just shut down because it got overrun w/ homeless:

https://tinyurl.com/2s4zpnm5

With heavy hearts we announce that, effective immediately, Triangle Denver is closing indefinitely thanks primarily to the ever-expanding encampments which have surrounded and suffocated the businesses in our neighborhood, the email stated.

The survey of over 500 people found 75% of customers visited less in 2023 than in 2022.

Answering the question How have each of the following factors influenced your interest in visiting the Triangle positively (you wanted to visit more) or negatively (discouraged you from visiting) in the past year, 61.4% of respondents said homeless encampments/safety concerns was a negative influence, according to a screengrab of the survey results.

We have been injecting funds regularly into the bar just to keep the doors open while pressuring the media and the city to take corrective action which finally occurred on September 27th, the email states. For one single afternoon, we had our neighborhood back. Less than 24 hours later, camps returned, and despite our pleas, have seen no action from the city to stop the re-entrenchment.

We cant ask our guests or staff to continue to endure this health and safety nightmare. Our well of patience and resources has run dry.

Damn, sucks they couldn't hold on for another year or two, since clearly UBI is working and would eradicate their problem once it's expanded.

ReiRei89 posted...

This is going to upset the chuds.

They'll just scream about how most of them didn't earn it and they are all drug addicts anyway blah blah blah.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Market it to chuds.
"It's cheaper than welfare and prison, and if someone starves anyway it's his own damn fault"

Won't work. Cruelty is the point

archizzy posted...

$5,600 lump sum to each person. Not $5,600 divided among the group.

That is definitely better, and thank you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Andrew Yang is a bit of a hack, but his UBI plan was pretty foolproof.

A VAT (Value Added Tax) on luxury items, so you didn't have to pay into it unless you had the money to cover it (for example, homes valued at over $1 Million, Yachts, Cars in excess of $250K, etc) combined with if you're part of the UBI plan you can't be a part of other government assistance programs (such as food stamps or welfare), and it only went until you started collecting Social Security (not 100% if that was an official part of the plan, but I recall him mentioning it).

bigblu89 posted...

homes valued at over $1 Million

that's basically all of them now, unless it has wheels underneath it.

You mean they didn't just spend it all on drugs?!

Man who would have thought that helping the homeless would actually help them...

Questionmarktarius posted...

that's basically all of them now, unless it has wheels underneath it.

Where tf do you live? I understand the market is atrocious, and you're being hyperbolic but c'mon

FolkenRawr posted...

I understand the market is atrocious, and you're being hyperbolic but c'mon

Nothing but mcmansions are being built anymore, thus the only "cheap" houses were built decades ago, or in Barstow or something. Anywhere near a relevant city (but not too near), and built since the mid-90s, and you pretty much are looking at a million, minimum.

Money may not buy happiness, but it buys things that make you happy.

MatzoTov posted...

Money may not buy happiness, but it buys things that make you happy.

money can bribe sadness to fuck off for a little bit.

There are three groups: One receives $1,000 a month for a year; another receives $6,500 up front and then $500 a month from there; and another gets just $50 a month.

Id be pissed if I was in the last group

Questionmarktarius posted...

Nothing but mcmansions are being built anymore, thus the only "cheap" houses were built decades ago, or in Barstow or something. Anywhere near a relevant city (but not too near), and built since the mid-90s, and you pretty much are looking at a million, minimum.

They just built a bunch near me starting at $300,000 (under 15 miles to major city)

Then again they they are near me so that is probably the reason.

Mistere_Man posted...

They just built a bunch near me starting at $300,000 (under 15 miles to major city)

Then again they they are near me so that is probably the reason.

okay, there was a bit of hyperbole up there.

Questionmarktarius posted...

that's basically all of them now, unless it has wheels underneath it.

Well, at the time of his initial proposal, the median home cost was only something like $275K.

I'm sure it would be adjusted as the years/inflation changed.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Nothing but mcmansions are being built anymore, thus the only "cheap" houses were built decades ago, or in Barstow or something. Anywhere near a relevant city (but not too near), and built since the mid-90s, and you pretty much are looking at a million, minimum.

I mean, you're wrong, considering I live a 40 minute train ride from NYC and brand new homes in my area aren't even hitting $700k. And I'm in one of the top 20 School Districts on Long Island.

Problem with reports like these is that "the homeless" is not a monolithic group of people where one solution is going to fix it. There's always been a portion of the homeless population that are victims of circumstance and only need a little help to get back on their feet. Many homeless solution programs have this tendency to launch pilot programs like these where they screen out the, for the lack of a better term, undesirables, then other people latch on the summarized results as some sort of magical fix to the homeless problem.

Here's their eligibility criteria for participation in the study:

Eligibility criteria for DBIP participation included being 18 years old or older, accessing services
from one of the partner agencies, not having severe and unaddressed mental health or
substance use needs, and experiencing homelessness, as defined by DBIP. 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.

I also question the methodology when less than 60% of the participants of the program completed the surveys from which the analysis is made. It's a pretty clear case of survivorship bias that they don't do anything to address in their findings which leads to some wonky results like the C group (the one that received the least) doing better in several categories.

interesting