Somehow that doesn't seem like a lot. I would have expected the original number to be much smaller.
It will be interesting to see how this works out in the long term, as well as a way to focus on the 17% who benefitted from the program.
32% return on investment sounds like a lot to me.
(This is complicated by the high attrition in the control group: they lost track of a third to a half of the control group and so couldn't do an intent-to-treat analysis; they argue that the bias from this heavy attrition is probably in the direction of understating the benefits since it was mostly the ones who were worst-off at baseline who disappeared, but of course there's no way to be sure and one could easily argue the opposite.)
There are a lot of nonprofits out there that can't get funding because their benefits are difficult to quantify, or because their benefits are too diffused and doesn't impact government bottom line directly.
The analyzing-results link is the fulltext, for those who missed it: https://www.sacredheartmission.org/sites/default/files/publi...
There are quite a few analyses of the results in Utah, which saw a substantial reduction in homelessness.
