What Did Denver's Basic Income Project Really Show?

The Denver Basic Income Project (DBIP) set out to answer a big question: Could cash payments help unhoused people find stable housing? They tested this idea using a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Surprisingly, the study didn't find what many media reports claimed. Contrary to some news articles, the cash payments didn't dramatically improve housing for the recipients. This is confusing for those debating the project's funding, like Mayor Mike Johnston and some Denver City Council members. To understand why, let's look at the study's method. They split 807 unhoused individuals into three groups. Two groups got $12, 000 each over a year, either in monthly or lump sum payments. The third group got $600 over the year, which wasn't expected to help much with housing in Denver's expensive market. The groups were randomly chosen to ensure they were comparable except for the cash payments. The goal was to see if those with more money would find stable housing. But ten months later, there was no significant difference between the groups. All groups were more likely to be housed, but this wasn't just because of the cash. Many unhoused people can find housing within ten months anyway, thanks to their own efforts and existing services. In Colorado, only about a third are chronically homeless. The mayor correctly noted that the data isn't clear on this housing strategy. It's disappointing the DBIP didn't work as hoped, but there's a lesson from another effort. In Camden, New Jersey, the Camden Coalition helped frequent hospital users. Though press praised the program, an RCT found no real impact on hospital visits. The researcher behind it, Dr. Jeffrey Brenner, was upset but adapted and retested his approach. It takes courage to face disappointing results and work towards better solutions.