Project participants were carefully screened for program eligibility to ensure the highest likelihood of success. Our goals in designing these criteria were to support participants to the highest degree possible, assess their readiness for change, and reduce any risk of harm.
Eligibility criteria included:
19+ years of age
Newly homeless and living in a temporary shelter situation
Canadian citizen or permanent resident
Low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse "
Sorry, but what absolutely bullshit study that was designed to be successful, not realistic.
The entire methodology is based on confirmation bias, sampling bias, and selection bias at the very least!
It doesn’t surprise me that this study does not appear to be peer reviewed. What a disingenuous organization using junk science to get funding. 👎
For starters, neither groups is representative of the homeless demographic.
And when you take a group of people who have the best chance of success through your selection and sample biases, you are engineering a positive result.
It’s showing a marginal positive result. It doesn’t need to target the entire homeless demographic if this income isn’t provided to the entire homeless demographic.
Social security comes with screening. That’s not new.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
" Eligibility
Project participants were carefully screened for program eligibility to ensure the highest likelihood of success. Our goals in designing these criteria were to support participants to the highest degree possible, assess their readiness for change, and reduce any risk of harm.
Eligibility criteria included:
19+ years of age
Newly homeless and living in a temporary shelter situation
Canadian citizen or permanent resident
Low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse "
Sorry, but what absolutely bullshit study that was designed to be successful, not realistic.
The entire methodology is based on confirmation bias, sampling bias, and selection bias at the very least!
It doesn’t surprise me that this study does not appear to be peer reviewed. What a disingenuous organization using junk science to get funding. 👎
Both groups were drawn from the same set. What bias are you talking about?
For starters, neither groups is representative of the homeless demographic.
And when you take a group of people who have the best chance of success through your selection and sample biases, you are engineering a positive result.
Well designed studies don’t work that way.
It’s showing a marginal positive result. It doesn’t need to target the entire homeless demographic if this income isn’t provided to the entire homeless demographic.
Social security comes with screening. That’s not new.