>I read your other comment with the numbers and I don't think it makes the amazing difference you seem to.

Maybe you're looking more at the article headline, which implies the author was focused on the study results. The thrust of the article isn't that the programs are ineffective (in fact, toward the end of the article she's quite optimistic that isn't the case). Her problem is that the results are overstated. But one of the prime examples she cites to support that idea does not actually support it. Denver claimed significance, and the study results support their claim.

>The table you quote from the final study doesn't include the people who were lost, only those who filled out both surveys, T1 and T3. So using it to say they helped a greater percent of people is a bit weird.

Why is that weird? The percentage of the test group who found housing is significantly higher than control. We don't know what happened to the people who dropped out---the worst case scenario is that none of them found housing, which leaves the stats as they are.

>So what am i missing? Why should I look at these results and think it is amazing?

They didn't claim it was amazing, they claimed it was significant. The author implied they were lying. They were not. That's what you're missing.