That misses the big picture. Money given out was spent locally including on things such as housing and paying for goods and services, in addition it increased the employment rate for those that participated. It also noted that, 'They also experienced fewer emergency room visits, nights spent in a hospital or a temporary shelter, and jail stays" have additional benefits that aren't easily measured monetarily.
Most of the participants were likely already receiving various forms of government assistance, and the long-term benefits of getting people out of very dire circumstances is better for society at large. It's one of the reasons why we fund public education just for starters.
I'm... not sure about this study. It seems flawed at best. Between the three groups - $1k/mo, $50/mo, and $6.5k lump sum + $500/mo - there wasn't a real difference between the groups, which tells me that giving $50/mo, $500/mo, and $1k/mo doesn't really matter, which tells me this isn't really effective or it was just too small of a study.
Looking at the individual service groups that were tracked, drug and alcohol treatment costs actually went up for the $50/mo and the lump sum was nearly 3x more beneficial than $1k/mo. Jail time was reduced by $75k for the $50/mo group where the $1k/mo group was only reduced by $10k. And reduction in shelter visits was nearly identical for all three groups.
I also couldn't find any description of their control. The word "control" was used once in the entire quantitative full report.
Moreover, all three groups in this study followed a nearly identical path for probability of being unhoused over the course of a year.
It's really kind of damning that they didn't show a control group of people who didn't receive any payment during that same period. Or for any of the other factors being studied.....
While I think that UBI is a good thing, this isn't great in terms of findings... In fact, it seems to indicate that UBI doesn't much matter. Or maybe the conclusion is that $1k/month isn't at that critical threshold to matter.
And I think there are better places to spend $9M than on something that only reduced costs by $600k
between all three groups combined. Which is another red flag to me. Why combine them? That doesn't make much sense to me.