It’s great that none of the seniors receiving the subsidy became homeless, but… kind of a weak dataset from which to draw conclusions, no? Presumably the program currently supports 25-40 seniors, none of whom are homeless. A 3% increase in in the control group (seniors not receiving the subsidy) would mean at most one individual/family in the study group was protected. What was the margin of error, again?
Would be nice to at least mention what the overall rate of senior homelessness is, LAist. Right now I can’t even tell whether they mean it went from (for example) 10% to 13% or to 10.3%.
