In a recent article, I explored how our political values tend to influence how we perceive people with obesity. Similar political traits influence our views of people living in poverty or experiencing other forms of hardship. It’s perhaps no surprise, therefore, that a recent study from the University of British Columbia finds that the public often has unfair stereotypes about the financial skills of homeless people.
The researchers quizzed around 1,100 people across the US to understand how they feel homeless people would spend a no-strings-attached $7,500 payment. The results reveal that over 80% thought that people would blow that money on things such as alcohol and drugs.
Unfair perceptions
To test whether these perceptions were justified, the researchers actually gave this amount of money to 50 homeless people in Vancouver and compared their spending patterns with a control group of homeless people who didn’t receive such a windfall.
The results showed how misguided people’s perceptions are. Not only did recipients not blow the cash on temptation goods, but they also benefited significantly from the cash. The researchers found that they spent nearly 100 fewer days homeless while also boosting their savings. This helped to save society around $800 that would have been spent on providing them with shelter.
“The impact of these biases is detrimental,” the researchers explain. “When people received the cash transfer, they actually spent it on things that you or I would spend it on—housing, clothing, food, transit—and not on drugs and alcohol.”
Changing perceptions
The researchers then explored how they could potentially change people’s opinions on how cash transfers to homeless people might be spent. They discovered that the most effective messaging would explain how people actually spent the money they received. Similarly, messaging that highlighted the savings for society was also effective.
Arguments around a universal basic income have been percolating for a few years now, and this study provides further evidence as to the potential benefits. Many of the concerns expressed about cash payments to the homeless echo those about UBI in general. Hopefully evidence such as this will help to go some way toward moving the debate forward in a constructive manner.
“We know that people tend to dehumanize those experiencing homelessness. What’s surprising to me was how large this bias was,” the authors conclude. “Homelessness is such a big problem in North America right now. It’s extremely costly in terms of GDP as well as human lives, and the current approaches to homelessness reduction are not working. That’s why I think it’s important to explore a different approach.”
