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

  • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Now watch how out of touch conservatives are when they start claiming that these people are living in luxury. It’s a great project and I’m not trying to demerit the people in charge, but $750 doesn’t go far at all in a place like San Francisco

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 months ago

      Remember when they flipped their shit over obama phones? Like, poor people were getting free or low cost cell phones. The horror! What’s next, food stamp steaks? What? You mean food stamps aren’t limited to gruel and powdered milk?

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ppl in SF are sure as shit not turning that down. At the minimum that’s your food for the month sorted out.

      • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Oh yeah for sure, it’s a great thing. I’m just trying to get an “in” before any conservatives come ITT and start talking about how this will just enable them or let them live easy. Like you said, it’s enough for food and maybe somewhere to sleep and that’s about it

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          When they say “live easy” they mean it literally. They’re against the idea of a society where people can easily get the bare necessities without having to put in effort and work for it. As if that’s a bad thing.

          You work for the luxuries, you should be able to live, as in keep your heart beating, with relatively little effort in a country that produces such excess.