New York Times Article on Randomisation Designs for Housing Policy

An interesting article in the NYT covers a debate about the use of an RCT design to test the efficacy of homelessness prevention programme called HOMEBASE. Opponents of the design argue that it wasn't need given that the programme was already demonstrating efficacy and also that it is unethical to treat people like lab rats in this fashion. Proponents argue that the money is currently being spent without awareness of whether it is really having an effect and that, therefore, the use of the RCT design will be a powerful guide as to whether the programme should be continued and/or scaled up.