Oregon gave homeless youth $1k/month with no strings

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Reliability of the Results and Study Design

  • Multiple commenters question reliance on self-reported outcomes, noting people tend to tell funders what they think they want to hear.
  • Critics want objective metrics: verified housing status, employment, income, health, and duration of stability after the program.
  • The linked full report shows issues: only 63 of 117 participants are in the evaluation sample, recruitment was mediated by providers, and those who stayed engaged may be systematically more successful.
  • Concerns also raised about missing a control group and the confounding effect of simultaneous counseling/support services, making it unclear what portion of success came from cash vs. support.

Short-Term Success vs. Long-Term Impact

  • Many see 94% housed at the end of the program as impressive, but emphasize it only covers the funded period.
  • Several want follow-up 6–12+ months later to measure regression: how many remain housed and self-sufficient without ongoing payments.
  • Some argue that until durability and cost-effectiveness are known, policymakers can’t judge whether this should be a permanent or time-limited intervention.

Cash Assistance, UBI, and Policy Implications

  • Supporters argue this is more evidence that “just give people money” works, at least for youth who became homeless primarily for economic or family reasons.
  • Some see this as a pathway toward larger-scale experiments in UBI; others warn about possible unintended side effects and insist that benefits be rigorously quantified.
  • Comparison is made to incarceration costs: commenters contend that spending modest amounts to stabilize people may be far cheaper than crime, policing, courts, and prison.

Fraud, Governance, and Role of the State

  • One commenter claims government-funded social programs “almost never” are well-managed and are ripe for fraud; others call this a myth, saying actual fraud rates in similar programs are low relative to benefits.
  • Debate over whether social support should be delivered primarily by government (universal, rights-based) or charity (local, conditional, lower “deadweight loss”) is sharp and unresolved.

Targeting and Demographics

  • Some question why participants are disproportionately women and transgender/gender-nonconforming compared to overall homeless demographics.
  • Others explain: this is a youth program; homeless youth are disproportionately LGBTQ; the design explicitly prioritized groups overrepresented in youth homelessness (LGBTQ+, BIPOC, young parents, survivors of violence, etc.).
  • There is tension between prioritizing especially vulnerable subgroups and concerns that results may not generalize to the broader, mostly male, homeless population, particularly older adults with long-term substance use issues.