NEW YORK—The ethical foundation of a study conducted by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) was hotly debated by City Council Thursday afternoon.
The study has denied 200 individuals and their families access to Homebase assistance, a city program that helps people resolve housing problems that could result in homelessness. This group is then compared to 200 families with access to the program to see how they fare.
“This study raises profound and serious ethical questions,” said Councilwoman Annabel Palma as she opened the hearing. “The study deliberately denies services to at-risk individuals who sought our help because they were about to lose their homes.”
DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond and representatives of Abt Associates, the research and consulting firm that developed the study, defended their study before the council and members of the public.
“If we can learn how to target Homebase services properly and invest in prevention [of homelessness] we might be able to expand what we’re doing now to reach more families who are at risk, to prevent them from coming into the shelter system,” stated Diamond.
Currently $20 million a year is spent to aid 7,000 individuals and families. Federal stimulus money accounts for 80 percent of the program’s funds—a source of revenue that is only a temporary fix. Even without 200 applicants being denied access to Homebase through this study, 1,500 applicants are turned down each year due to a shortage of funds, explained Diamond.
He hopes to prove Hombase is more effective and cost-efficient than running shelters. Results are what determine the allocation of city funds, argues Diamond, and results are what he will have to show to get funding badly needed by Homebase.
The commissioner also stated that the number of applicants turned down has not changed; it is simply that the method of choosing who is turned down has changed. Before, it was on a first-come, first-serve basis—when the money ran out, people were referred to other services offered in the city. Now, a random group is selected.
“Why not have stuck with first-come, first-serve?” asked Councilman Brad Lander. He argued this provides a test group just as random the one now picked by lottery. He said they could have avoided the ethical issue of withdrawing from some people assistance they would have likely received otherwise.
Dr. Howard Rolston, principal researcher for Abt Associates, said this control group would not be as effective, but gave little evidence as to why. He said that only looking at applicants from the latter part of the year after funds dried up would not be good because “seasonality” could be a test factor.
“There are considerations—[applicants] may not have been distributed the same way,” continued Rolston before being interrupted by Lander who asked him if he had considered using applicants already being denied services as a control group.
“I never considered it,” admitted Rolston.
At the heart of the debate was whether a lottery-style random assignment is any less ethical than a first-come, first-serve basis for denying services.
“I think both are ethical to do,” stated Rolston. John Mollenkopf, a professor of political science and sociology at CUNY agreed. He pointed out this kind of random selection is being implemented in assigning low-income and moderate-income housing in some parts of the city.
Lander maintained that in other instances where random selection is implemented, new services are being withheld from people—not services they were previously eligible for but subsequently denied. He said changing the logic of denial already in place has ethical implications.
“You chose 200 of them [the 1,500 applicants denied annually], who likely otherwise would have received services, to withdraw it and give it to 200 other people—that is an ethically complex thing to decide,” stated Lander.
Those defending the study pointed out that families denied Homebase services were informed of the consequences of participating in the study and given the option to take part as well as the ability to withdraw at any in compliance with federal protocol.
“If you choose not to participate, you will not be eligible for Homebase services,” read Stephen Levin from the consent form. Levin was adamant anyone in a precarious situation, about to lose their home, would feel forced into participating in this study, being threatened with denial of Homebase services.
Participants may be given the option of withdrawing from the study, but they will still be denied Homebase aide.
“You can opt out of the research, but you can’t then opt into the services,” said Rolston, “you may choose to get services elsewhere.”
Levin made it clear in his closing argument that he doesn’t think that’s right.
Gale Brewer, who sits on the General Welfare Committee, broke the tension in the room getting a chuckle out of the panel and audience: “They don’t like your study Seth.”
Brewer didn’t have an issue with the study so much as the whole Homebase program.
Brewer told Diamond to give her the $20 million, and she would fix the city’s homeless problem in a jiffy. Instead of the money coming from the city or federal government, she said the city should focus more on being a liaison between those in need of aid and third-party organizations who receive donations expressly for homeless people, such as churches and synagogues.
“We will get the church or synagogue to give you the money, that’s how we keep people in their homes—M-O-N-E-Y. I could cut—and I don’t mean to be obnoxious—your homeless population in half if I was able to do that kind of work,” stated Brewer.
The DHS study will last two years, at which time data will be compiled and analyzed before it is released. Palma noted that at that time “we’ll be out of office.” The council will, however, continue this dialogue with DHS about the ethical implications of their study before passing legislation on the matter.
The study has denied 200 individuals and their families access to Homebase assistance, a city program that helps people resolve housing problems that could result in homelessness. This group is then compared to 200 families with access to the program to see how they fare.
“This study raises profound and serious ethical questions,” said Councilwoman Annabel Palma as she opened the hearing. “The study deliberately denies services to at-risk individuals who sought our help because they were about to lose their homes.”
DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond and representatives of Abt Associates, the research and consulting firm that developed the study, defended their study before the council and members of the public.
“If we can learn how to target Homebase services properly and invest in prevention [of homelessness] we might be able to expand what we’re doing now to reach more families who are at risk, to prevent them from coming into the shelter system,” stated Diamond.
Currently $20 million a year is spent to aid 7,000 individuals and families. Federal stimulus money accounts for 80 percent of the program’s funds—a source of revenue that is only a temporary fix. Even without 200 applicants being denied access to Homebase through this study, 1,500 applicants are turned down each year due to a shortage of funds, explained Diamond.
He hopes to prove Hombase is more effective and cost-efficient than running shelters. Results are what determine the allocation of city funds, argues Diamond, and results are what he will have to show to get funding badly needed by Homebase.
The commissioner also stated that the number of applicants turned down has not changed; it is simply that the method of choosing who is turned down has changed. Before, it was on a first-come, first-serve basis—when the money ran out, people were referred to other services offered in the city. Now, a random group is selected.
“Why not have stuck with first-come, first-serve?” asked Councilman Brad Lander. He argued this provides a test group just as random the one now picked by lottery. He said they could have avoided the ethical issue of withdrawing from some people assistance they would have likely received otherwise.
Dr. Howard Rolston, principal researcher for Abt Associates, said this control group would not be as effective, but gave little evidence as to why. He said that only looking at applicants from the latter part of the year after funds dried up would not be good because “seasonality” could be a test factor.
“There are considerations—[applicants] may not have been distributed the same way,” continued Rolston before being interrupted by Lander who asked him if he had considered using applicants already being denied services as a control group.
“I never considered it,” admitted Rolston.
At the heart of the debate was whether a lottery-style random assignment is any less ethical than a first-come, first-serve basis for denying services.
“I think both are ethical to do,” stated Rolston. John Mollenkopf, a professor of political science and sociology at CUNY agreed. He pointed out this kind of random selection is being implemented in assigning low-income and moderate-income housing in some parts of the city.
Lander maintained that in other instances where random selection is implemented, new services are being withheld from people—not services they were previously eligible for but subsequently denied. He said changing the logic of denial already in place has ethical implications.
“You chose 200 of them [the 1,500 applicants denied annually], who likely otherwise would have received services, to withdraw it and give it to 200 other people—that is an ethically complex thing to decide,” stated Lander.
An Informed Choice
Those defending the study pointed out that families denied Homebase services were informed of the consequences of participating in the study and given the option to take part as well as the ability to withdraw at any in compliance with federal protocol.
“If you choose not to participate, you will not be eligible for Homebase services,” read Stephen Levin from the consent form. Levin was adamant anyone in a precarious situation, about to lose their home, would feel forced into participating in this study, being threatened with denial of Homebase services.
Participants may be given the option of withdrawing from the study, but they will still be denied Homebase aide.
“You can opt out of the research, but you can’t then opt into the services,” said Rolston, “you may choose to get services elsewhere.”
Levin made it clear in his closing argument that he doesn’t think that’s right.
Gale Brewer, who sits on the General Welfare Committee, broke the tension in the room getting a chuckle out of the panel and audience: “They don’t like your study Seth.”
Brewer didn’t have an issue with the study so much as the whole Homebase program.
Brewer told Diamond to give her the $20 million, and she would fix the city’s homeless problem in a jiffy. Instead of the money coming from the city or federal government, she said the city should focus more on being a liaison between those in need of aid and third-party organizations who receive donations expressly for homeless people, such as churches and synagogues.
“We will get the church or synagogue to give you the money, that’s how we keep people in their homes—M-O-N-E-Y. I could cut—and I don’t mean to be obnoxious—your homeless population in half if I was able to do that kind of work,” stated Brewer.
The DHS study will last two years, at which time data will be compiled and analyzed before it is released. Palma noted that at that time “we’ll be out of office.” The council will, however, continue this dialogue with DHS about the ethical implications of their study before passing legislation on the matter.
