Results for Group A (1000$/m) closely resemble results for control Group C(50$/m). Metrics like % of Unsheltered participants, change in full-time employment, % of participans in a house they rent or own... have a diference of 1 or 2 points.

Thats the point of the author, those are minimal variances, and insuficient to claim inpact due to basic income.

Personal opinion. The study itself exert a nontrivial influence on participants. The act of being engaged, regular check-ins... affect positively. Their lives improve independent of the financial component because they are part of the study, not because of the amount of money in the procedure.

▲

vannevar 2 days ago | parent [-]

Where are you getting the figures for unsheltered participants? The page I linked seems pretty clear: there was a 31% increase in housing for the control group, and a 38% increase for the group that received payments. That's a significant improvement, much more than 1 or 2 points. Especially considering the likelihood that some of the participants in both groups might have no intent to get housing either way.

▲

stickfigure 2 days ago | parent [-]

38% for $1,000/mo vs 31% in the control group seems like a pretty disappointing result to me. Maybe not insignificant, but more lose than win.

	▲	vannevar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe 38% vs 31% saved the city a large amount of money. The question wasn't whether the results disappointed any particular individual. The author's claim is that Denver overstated their results and that turns out not to be true.