Here’s the thing. I drop whatever I’m doing to read Brian’s Substacks as soon as I see them appear in my inbox but, and I’m sure he won’t mind me saying this, they don’t always cheer me up. I am though much the wiser for having read them. Then he lands an article like this on us. Wow, what a brilliant approach Greater Change have – it just feels right and so smart – reasons to be cheerful. I certainly hope the Kings College study backs up their success to date with evidence that policy makers act on. I’m a donor now.
More uplifting essays coming in not-so-distant future. I'm a very optimistic person...there's just a lot of bad stuff happening at the moment. And thanks for supporting them; that's lovely to hear.
And yet is EXACTLY the politician I’d vote for: “No politician wants to end up in the press, defending using taxpayer funds to buy someone a bike, or to pay someone else’s rent on a one-off basis, or to buy someone a pair of soccer shoes, or to cover the cost of dog kennels, or to send someone off on a brief holiday.” But that Trump is president only amplifies the punitive moralizing attitude that unfortunately dominates here in the U.S.
Here in South Dakota we’ve decided as our federal government has that “able-bodied” Medicaid recipients need to work and/or prove they are trying to work, every few months. We know how much money they both make and have because in order to qualify in the first place, all that information is collected. These aren’t people with stock portfolios or off shore accounts where they are hiding their vast wealth. They are the poorest among us and rather than simply acknowledge that—or assess on a yearly basis whether they have more income that means they no longer qualify, we create an expensive bureaucracy to track these lazy able-bodied shirkers—thus spending more tax dollars to create barriers when there is no evidence that doing so will move people off Medicaid. As if someone who never graduated from high school or who is mentally ill or who has crushing debt will suddenly become employed in a high wage profession. It’s a short-sighted and inhumane approach to “helping” people by first letting them know that it’s all their fault. They don’t deserve support. Any support must be earned or it will just lead them to suck on the public teat forever the lazy sots. I remember when I was working at a college and one of our many desperately poor students was late for class because the steering wheel in her car had literally come off in her hands when she turned the corner to the college—she lived many miles away and needed a car not just to get to her once a week night class but to get back and forth to work. One of the women who worked there gave her the money to get her car fixed—I’m not sure how much it cost or whether she paid it back or not, but she was able to continue working and finish her class. Failing that intervention, she loses her job, can’t finish her class, needs far more public support and the cycle continues. Yes, it’s time we quit judging and start helping. It is not only more humane, it’s more cost effective as this article confirms.
Brian makes a powerful argument for jettisoning moralizing and “othering “ and replacing that with common sense (and financially smart) simple cash solutions that so often push people into homelessness. There is a real and consequential parallel in public health. I see it constantly/ the mom who can’f pay the emergency room visit that got her back to work, the middle aged construction worker who starts accruing small debts for his ongoing diabetes treatment. Small debts grow into large ones and eventually and tragically can
lead to lack of access to any healthcare. This has enormous consequences for the person and enormous financial burden for society.
The Greater Change experiment certainly has merit, based on the results. And your observation that people's judgments about the poor and homeless are often harsh and in several respects inaccurate is true. And I suspect that, short of a sustained campaign aimed at the general public (hard to conduct in this age of fragmenting media outlets) these opinions will not change. So there's that. The outcomes and savings you point at might be more easily understood, because the poor are poor for so many reasons--some systemic, some by virtue of physical and mental illness, some by accidents of fate and some by character defects. (Those latter are shared throughout every social and economic class, as evidenced by every single member of the Trump administration.) I thing people are so niggardly in their attitudes partly because they themselves feel unsupported by their government. It would likely be of benefit to compare attitudes and treatment of the homeless in robust social democracies such as those in Scandinavia with those in the UK and the US.
I have worked in and around the effective philanthropy sector in the US for 20 years. There’s no one way to fix hard social problems (if there were, they would be fixed), but there are several principles that typically apply in my experience and are reflected here: one is just “treat humans as humans, not abstractions;” another is “the people closest to the problem will find the best solutions” (e.g., the people living closest to those experiencing homelessness); a third is “don’t let your giving get in the way” (e.g., don’t condition your giving based on your moralizing own assumptions rather than what people closer to the problem and the humans in question say works). Humanity, humility, and minimal bureaucracy. Not a cure all, but good words to give by.
Indeed--I certainly don't think Greater Change will "fix" homelessness, but I think their approach can help teach others on the principles you highlight!
Really great piece, and it sounds like Greater Change is onto something. But in reading this, I was immediately struck by this thought: if all it can take to prevent someone from slipping into a terrible cycle of poverty is a few hundred dollars in some cases, what does that say about our society? I think it is quite clear — it shows in sharp relief that we’ve created societies where far too many people are constantly forced to walk a tightrope where a simple, minute hiccup can send them barreling into the abyss below. It is a clear indictment of our system.
So with that said, I hope that we look at projects like Greater Change as a step in the right direction but not the end goal to solving the underlying problems that make such charitable projects necessary. They are down-stream solutions to up-stream problems, nets below the tightrope ready to catch people when they fall and prevent them from hurtling into the abyss. That is a great thing. But my hope is that someday, we’ll no longer need those nets. I hope we eventually no longer make people walk the tightrope.
Yes, I completely agree -- these are systems that, by design, ensure that many people are in situations that are terribly fragile. Small hiccups create ruin. It would be better to design societies so that small hiccups are more easily absorbed by a greater number of people (and societies with better social safety nets do that).
‘Payday loans’ are scams that prey on marginalized people, conning them into perpetual and increasing debt when they try to make it to their next paycheck (or Social Security check or whatever). Sometimes, the wolf is kept from the door, but often whatever caused the initial problem turns out to be recurring or enduring. That can happen when you’re living on a shoestring. Just barely getting by is often just waiting for an unexpected cash flow problem to trigger a ‘payday loan’, which then swells into homelessness and mounting debt.
"And just how much government spending is wasted on coping with homelessness rather than preventing it in the first place, when it’s cheapest to solve?"
Excellent observation, in an excellent piece.
I live in Vancouver, and have seen it go from having 'issues' ( mid-90's) with what you describe to the present: serious homelessness, exacerbated by high rents-amongst the highest in N. America- a sea of Fentanyl...the well intentioned bureau-crazy you describe. (sad p.s. here: if you're not on Fentanyl prior to homelessness...)
At the outset of his outstanding final book, " Ill Fares the Land" Tony Judt notes that "We know what things cost, but have no idea what they're worth". It does appear to some silly to 'reward people for being non-contributors/a drain on society'. So, we don't: we punish, and/or fix them (or not) along predetermined logical lines. We've seen the results of that.
Great to hear that our Vancouver experiment is working!
( Tony Judt was dying when he wrote "Ill Fares the Land". In the Acknowledgements, in under three pages, he makes the most gracious, noble, hearfelt departure from Life you are ever likely to read.)
They give away small amounts of money to help children in need, but they do it via teachers, social workers and others who see the need, and the money is given out anonymously via those people so that it isn't seen as charity (thus avoiding shame). Small things like buying shoes, sports equipment, clothes, and other services can make a huge difference in a struggling child's life. I love Alice's Kids.
I suspect the thinking behind it all is that in modern developed countries people are homeless for multiple complex reasons (addiction and psychiatric matters are often mentioned rather than straightforward "moral failings") and that it cannot be as simple as NOT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN A FEW HUNDRED QUID at some point in time. That we are beyond that. That "poverty" is almost never simply lack of money. It's -- on an emotional level, I think, rather than purely intellectual, -- inconceivable to policy and decision makers.
PS. I know of unemployed young people (in Scotland) who got bikes and Chromebooks via job centers so they could get to work/start a WFH gig -- so on this point the official bureaucracy isn't hopeless.
I asked them to review the studies, then "Would the preponderance of evidence support or discourage a policy of cash support for homeless people?" The last paragraphs of the answer were:
Dia: Policy takeaway: The preponderance of evidence supports cash assistance as part of an integrated strategy—especially when combined with Housing First, benefits protection, and navigation/case management—rather than as a substitute for housing supply, treatment, or employment services. Cash appears to help individuals resolve near‑term constraints (deposits, ID fees, transportation, arrears) and exit shelters more quickly; durable gains likely require adequate transfer sizes, continuity or well‑timed lump sums, and pairing with housing access. 
Claude: The evidence suggests a targeted approach is far more defensible than universal programs: direct cash support for homeless populations appears to be both effective and cost-saving, while universal basic income for the general population shows mixed results with significant work disincentive effects.This aligns with evidence-based policy principles: interventions should be targeted at populations and problems where they demonstrably work, rather than applied universally based on ideology.
This actually made me feel a bit better about our future AI overlords ... at least they give more nuanced and empirically supported guidance than our current Heritage Foundation overlords 🫠
Here’s the thing. I drop whatever I’m doing to read Brian’s Substacks as soon as I see them appear in my inbox but, and I’m sure he won’t mind me saying this, they don’t always cheer me up. I am though much the wiser for having read them. Then he lands an article like this on us. Wow, what a brilliant approach Greater Change have – it just feels right and so smart – reasons to be cheerful. I certainly hope the Kings College study backs up their success to date with evidence that policy makers act on. I’m a donor now.
More uplifting essays coming in not-so-distant future. I'm a very optimistic person...there's just a lot of bad stuff happening at the moment. And thanks for supporting them; that's lovely to hear.
And yet is EXACTLY the politician I’d vote for: “No politician wants to end up in the press, defending using taxpayer funds to buy someone a bike, or to pay someone else’s rent on a one-off basis, or to buy someone a pair of soccer shoes, or to cover the cost of dog kennels, or to send someone off on a brief holiday.” But that Trump is president only amplifies the punitive moralizing attitude that unfortunately dominates here in the U.S.
Here in South Dakota we’ve decided as our federal government has that “able-bodied” Medicaid recipients need to work and/or prove they are trying to work, every few months. We know how much money they both make and have because in order to qualify in the first place, all that information is collected. These aren’t people with stock portfolios or off shore accounts where they are hiding their vast wealth. They are the poorest among us and rather than simply acknowledge that—or assess on a yearly basis whether they have more income that means they no longer qualify, we create an expensive bureaucracy to track these lazy able-bodied shirkers—thus spending more tax dollars to create barriers when there is no evidence that doing so will move people off Medicaid. As if someone who never graduated from high school or who is mentally ill or who has crushing debt will suddenly become employed in a high wage profession. It’s a short-sighted and inhumane approach to “helping” people by first letting them know that it’s all their fault. They don’t deserve support. Any support must be earned or it will just lead them to suck on the public teat forever the lazy sots. I remember when I was working at a college and one of our many desperately poor students was late for class because the steering wheel in her car had literally come off in her hands when she turned the corner to the college—she lived many miles away and needed a car not just to get to her once a week night class but to get back and forth to work. One of the women who worked there gave her the money to get her car fixed—I’m not sure how much it cost or whether she paid it back or not, but she was able to continue working and finish her class. Failing that intervention, she loses her job, can’t finish her class, needs far more public support and the cycle continues. Yes, it’s time we quit judging and start helping. It is not only more humane, it’s more cost effective as this article confirms.
Brian makes a powerful argument for jettisoning moralizing and “othering “ and replacing that with common sense (and financially smart) simple cash solutions that so often push people into homelessness. There is a real and consequential parallel in public health. I see it constantly/ the mom who can’f pay the emergency room visit that got her back to work, the middle aged construction worker who starts accruing small debts for his ongoing diabetes treatment. Small debts grow into large ones and eventually and tragically can
lead to lack of access to any healthcare. This has enormous consequences for the person and enormous financial burden for society.
I suggest all policy makers be required to pass competency tests in statistics and the scientific method.
The Greater Change experiment certainly has merit, based on the results. And your observation that people's judgments about the poor and homeless are often harsh and in several respects inaccurate is true. And I suspect that, short of a sustained campaign aimed at the general public (hard to conduct in this age of fragmenting media outlets) these opinions will not change. So there's that. The outcomes and savings you point at might be more easily understood, because the poor are poor for so many reasons--some systemic, some by virtue of physical and mental illness, some by accidents of fate and some by character defects. (Those latter are shared throughout every social and economic class, as evidenced by every single member of the Trump administration.) I thing people are so niggardly in their attitudes partly because they themselves feel unsupported by their government. It would likely be of benefit to compare attitudes and treatment of the homeless in robust social democracies such as those in Scandinavia with those in the UK and the US.
I have worked in and around the effective philanthropy sector in the US for 20 years. There’s no one way to fix hard social problems (if there were, they would be fixed), but there are several principles that typically apply in my experience and are reflected here: one is just “treat humans as humans, not abstractions;” another is “the people closest to the problem will find the best solutions” (e.g., the people living closest to those experiencing homelessness); a third is “don’t let your giving get in the way” (e.g., don’t condition your giving based on your moralizing own assumptions rather than what people closer to the problem and the humans in question say works). Humanity, humility, and minimal bureaucracy. Not a cure all, but good words to give by.
Indeed--I certainly don't think Greater Change will "fix" homelessness, but I think their approach can help teach others on the principles you highlight!
The New York Times used to run a regular column titled "Fixes": https://www.nytimes.com/column/fixes [link provides a links to each column]. The final column in 2021 [shared article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/opinion/fixes-solutions-journalism-lessons.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wE8.NOc9.TiEyu_xDWYnn&smid=url-share] summed up what the authors had learned during the 11 years of overseeing that column. This stuck out: "Journalists are often compared to watchdogs, but I began to see that we were sometimes acting like bees, helping to cross-pollinate ideas." Also, the authors conclude that journalists can better serve the public if they report not only on problems but on solutions to those problems.
Really great piece, and it sounds like Greater Change is onto something. But in reading this, I was immediately struck by this thought: if all it can take to prevent someone from slipping into a terrible cycle of poverty is a few hundred dollars in some cases, what does that say about our society? I think it is quite clear — it shows in sharp relief that we’ve created societies where far too many people are constantly forced to walk a tightrope where a simple, minute hiccup can send them barreling into the abyss below. It is a clear indictment of our system.
So with that said, I hope that we look at projects like Greater Change as a step in the right direction but not the end goal to solving the underlying problems that make such charitable projects necessary. They are down-stream solutions to up-stream problems, nets below the tightrope ready to catch people when they fall and prevent them from hurtling into the abyss. That is a great thing. But my hope is that someday, we’ll no longer need those nets. I hope we eventually no longer make people walk the tightrope.
Yes, I completely agree -- these are systems that, by design, ensure that many people are in situations that are terribly fragile. Small hiccups create ruin. It would be better to design societies so that small hiccups are more easily absorbed by a greater number of people (and societies with better social safety nets do that).
‘Payday loans’ are scams that prey on marginalized people, conning them into perpetual and increasing debt when they try to make it to their next paycheck (or Social Security check or whatever). Sometimes, the wolf is kept from the door, but often whatever caused the initial problem turns out to be recurring or enduring. That can happen when you’re living on a shoestring. Just barely getting by is often just waiting for an unexpected cash flow problem to trigger a ‘payday loan’, which then swells into homelessness and mounting debt.
"And just how much government spending is wasted on coping with homelessness rather than preventing it in the first place, when it’s cheapest to solve?"
Excellent observation, in an excellent piece.
I live in Vancouver, and have seen it go from having 'issues' ( mid-90's) with what you describe to the present: serious homelessness, exacerbated by high rents-amongst the highest in N. America- a sea of Fentanyl...the well intentioned bureau-crazy you describe. (sad p.s. here: if you're not on Fentanyl prior to homelessness...)
At the outset of his outstanding final book, " Ill Fares the Land" Tony Judt notes that "We know what things cost, but have no idea what they're worth". It does appear to some silly to 'reward people for being non-contributors/a drain on society'. So, we don't: we punish, and/or fix them (or not) along predetermined logical lines. We've seen the results of that.
Great to hear that our Vancouver experiment is working!
( Tony Judt was dying when he wrote "Ill Fares the Land". In the Acknowledgements, in under three pages, he makes the most gracious, noble, hearfelt departure from Life you are ever likely to read.)
Great article. Love the solution being used by Greater Change.
Excellent and thought-provoking article. I am very much interested in learning the outcome of the study
This reminds me of an excellent non-profit: Alice's Kids: https://www.aliceskids.org/
They give away small amounts of money to help children in need, but they do it via teachers, social workers and others who see the need, and the money is given out anonymously via those people so that it isn't seen as charity (thus avoiding shame). Small things like buying shoes, sports equipment, clothes, and other services can make a huge difference in a struggling child's life. I love Alice's Kids.
I suspect the thinking behind it all is that in modern developed countries people are homeless for multiple complex reasons (addiction and psychiatric matters are often mentioned rather than straightforward "moral failings") and that it cannot be as simple as NOT BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN A FEW HUNDRED QUID at some point in time. That we are beyond that. That "poverty" is almost never simply lack of money. It's -- on an emotional level, I think, rather than purely intellectual, -- inconceivable to policy and decision makers.
PS. I know of unemployed young people (in Scotland) who got bikes and Chromebooks via job centers so they could get to work/start a WFH gig -- so on this point the official bureaucracy isn't hopeless.
Combining the AI topic and the cash to the homeless topic, I pointed a couple of AI agents (Dia browser and the Claude.ai desktop app) to this article and the 😱 contradictory conclusion in https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/universal-basic-income-not-the-panacea-its-advertised .
I asked them to review the studies, then "Would the preponderance of evidence support or discourage a policy of cash support for homeless people?" The last paragraphs of the answer were:
Dia: Policy takeaway: The preponderance of evidence supports cash assistance as part of an integrated strategy—especially when combined with Housing First, benefits protection, and navigation/case management—rather than as a substitute for housing supply, treatment, or employment services. Cash appears to help individuals resolve near‑term constraints (deposits, ID fees, transportation, arrears) and exit shelters more quickly; durable gains likely require adequate transfer sizes, continuity or well‑timed lump sums, and pairing with housing access. 
Claude: The evidence suggests a targeted approach is far more defensible than universal programs: direct cash support for homeless populations appears to be both effective and cost-saving, while universal basic income for the general population shows mixed results with significant work disincentive effects.This aligns with evidence-based policy principles: interventions should be targeted at populations and problems where they demonstrably work, rather than applied universally based on ideology.
This actually made me feel a bit better about our future AI overlords ... at least they give more nuanced and empirically supported guidance than our current Heritage Foundation overlords 🫠