If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?

That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.

The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.

Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231221131158/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/750-a-month-no-questions-asked-improved-the-lives-of-homeless-people

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Except they do, because they show the value of fungible, no-questions-asked support

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t show it replacing all other welfare systems.

      This thing is helpful. That thing is helpful. They can both be helpful, at the same time, and work out better than either one alone!

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not “BI” that needs to be demonstrated. It’s “U”.

      Plus, these experiments do in fact ask questions about recipients’ income. Just like regular welfare programs.

            • Melllvar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Obviously because of your “reread the thread” comment.

              That’s not the response of someone who wants a meaningful discussion. That’s the response of someone who wants to end the discussion.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s the response of a person who thinks you’re having a conversation with someone else that you think you’re having with me, based on the not-quite-on-topic nature of your posting.

                For instance, my first sentence in this entire comment section is

                We’re honestly not at a point where UBI is sustainable.