@PNASNews published an RCT entitled "Unconditional Cash Transfers Reduce Homelessness." Quick take: The RCT found no discernible impact on any primary or secondary study outcome. The claimed effect on homelessness (an exploratory outcome) is unreliable due to sample loss >50%. (Continued below.)

Program & Study Design:

  • The study randomly assigned 22 homeless shelters in Vancouver, British Columbia - containing a total of 144 homeless participants - to treatment (a one-time cash transfer of CAD$7500/person) vs control (services as usual).


  • The study found no discernible impact on any prespecified primary or secondary outcome (related to cognitive functioning, subjective well-being, & self-efficacy). The study abstract — shown above — doesn't mention this fact & instead portrays the findings as unambiguously positive.

  • Also, I think the claimed effect on homelessness over 1 y (an exploratory outcome) is unreliable for multiple reasons, but most notably: The study lost more than half its sample over the year, & the loss was higher in the C group (63%) than T group (51%), undermining randomization.


  • Such inaccurate/unbalanced reporting of findings in study abstracts is unfortunately all too common, even in top journals like PNAS. I focus on abstracts because readers - who may be too busy to review a full study - often look to the abstract for an impartial summary of the main results.

  • Unfortunately, the study received uncritical press coverage in today’s Washington Post (9/1/23).

We use cookies to improve your experience and to help us understand how you use our site. Please refer to our cookie notice and privacy statement for more information regarding cookies and other third-party tracking that may be enabled.

Intuit Mailchimp logo