Shane Phillips’ Post

View profile for Shane Phillips, graphic

Housing Affordability Researcher, Author, Consultant, and Speaker

Today we published part 5 of Pathways Home, the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies' series on homelessness research for the UCLA Housing Voice Podcast. We spoke with Jiaying Zhao of The University of British Columbia about an experiment to give unhoused people in Vancouver, BC, a one-time, lump-sum, unconditional cash transfer of $7500 CAD. The results were very promising. The idea behind providing a large lump-sum payment rather than smaller payments spread out over time: A larger amount may help recipients move past survival mode — putting out day-to-day fires — and plan ahead further into the future. This has been observed in poorer countries, but it hasn't really been tested in higher-income places. What did they find? Compared to unhoused people receiving typical services, people who received $7500 spent 99 fewer days in shelter over one year, and 55 more days in stable housing. On average, they spent more on durable goods, rent, food, and transit, and spent no more on drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol. That last bit may surprise people. Cash transfer recipients spending 99 fewer days spent in shelter also saves the government money — about $8300 in Vancouver. That means a well-targeted program, in addition to its direct and indirect benefits, costs very little (or reduces costs) compared to existing interventions. Over time, people receiving typical treatment "catch up" to those receiving greater support on many housing, social, and health outcomes. Life for the "treatment" and control groups is fairly similar at the end of a year, but experiences *during* that year are markedly different. For me, this has been a key takeaway from these interviews: Given time, life gets better for most people experiencing homelessness. But when we provide more immediate and intensive support, we reduce suffering and speed up their recovery, and the net cost is often roughly $0. This study included public opinion polling that was super interesting. They surveyed people about how they expected cash transfer recipients to spend their money, and they predicted much higher spending on drugs and alcohol. No surprise there—paternalism drives a lot of policy. Researchers asked about peoples' support for unconditional cash transfers to address homelessness—at baseline, and after being told that recipients didn't increase spending on temptation goods or saved taxpayers money. Both increased support, but the taxpayer message more so. Lots of great stuff in this conversation, and the study itself, so give it a listen! Dr. Zhao and her colleagues are now working on an expanded study of this model so I'm very excited to learn what they find over the next several years. https://lnkd.in/gVd4EaZU

Episode 65: Reducing Homelessness with Unconditional Cash Transfers with Jiaying Zhao (Pathways Home pt. 5) - UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

Episode 65: Reducing Homelessness with Unconditional Cash Transfers with Jiaying Zhao (Pathways Home pt. 5) - UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies

https://www.lewis.ucla.edu

Jose Trinidad Castaneda

Driving Progress and Innovation via Partnerships and Policy Change

7mo

Wonderful episode!

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics