[PeterPrinciple]

Two key findings thus far include that people who
received M$ for 6 months are:

Less likely to be unsheltered as compared to
those who accessed usual services;

Closer to having enough money to meet all of
their basic needs as compared to those who
accessed usual services.
https://dworakpeck.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2023-12/Miracle%20Money_Nov%202023_FINAL_12.5.23.pdf

---

results that sound good but don’t really tell you anything. An interpretation with an agenda.

[Seaplaner]

An interpretation with an agenda.

Precisely.

I happen to know a few things about study design and interpretation of results.

One wonders how the groups were selected, as that's where bias begins. How do the groups compare, backgrounds, specific needs and issues, ages, sex (I decline the term "gender"), marital status, education, drug use, ethnicity, time on the street, health, family size... the list goes on.

Then, how are the participants followed? And, importantly, even though no questions asked, was there any coaching or any counselling of any kind?

What on earth does "less likely" mean.

One suspects that the "study" is a complete fraud.