I'm not being glib but I think agreeing on outcomes is a much harder issue than you think that it might be. In my experience in this space, disagreement on desired outcomes is the root of political problems around drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness.

I would hazard a guess that you support harm reduction strategies, those policies do not garner widespread support amongst the voting public. Further, even when it is, it is very easy for opponents to say, "Why are we giving drug addicts this money when school teachers haven't had a raise in five years and can't afford to live here?"

That's a great point. Maybe for example:

* level of negative externalities due to homeless people in city X goes down by Y%

* number of short-term homeless people in city X goes down by Y%

* number of chronically homeless people in city X goes down by Y%

* number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% of which no more than Z% may be due to decreased arrival rate or increased departure rate of homeless people

* number of homeless people in city X goes down by Y% without raising net tax burden in city X by more than Z%

* tax burden of homeless services primarily met by those who benefit financially from increased rents

* housing stock in city X increases by Y%

* median apartment rent in city X decreases by Y%

* average apartment rent in city X decreases by Y%

* apartment rent in city X keeps place with inflation

* Gini coefficient (income inequality) in city X decreases to at least Y

* unemployment rate in city X decreases to at least Y

* government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of drug treatment

* government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on cessation of drug use

* government refrains from conditioning benefits or services on acceptance of mental health care

* government requires acceptance of drug treatment or mental health care as a condition of receiving services

* no increase in arrests for crimes often committed by homeless people

* substantial increase in arrests for crimes that significantly affect other people's property or quality of life

(this isn't even including broader-based changes to unemployment insurance, welfare, or health care systems)

I don't disagree but you've already lost the voter. I think the best possible chance of success here wraps harm reduction and treatment strategies into an emotional story of paternalism/punishment.

That framework is really powerful in America and I've yet to see a narrative around harm reduction that resonates with most people, it just simply isn't attractive to spend tax money on needles and rent for drug addicts.

Oh, I meant this list to serve as examples of your point that people would find it hard to agree on these metrics, because some of them directly contradict each other!

>I think agreeing on outcomes is a much harder issue than you think that it might be.

This. People will pitch their idea going into the experiment then torture the resulting data until it suggests that their proposal was the most effective.

While I agree with you totally about the experiments -- am I the only person that thinks it's crazy that we're going to give $80K a year to the most useless people in our society when the median household income is like 33% less than that!?

It'd be great to, you know, not have the homeless problem. But when it's going to cost substantially more per person than the average person earns in a year, that just doesn't seem fair...

Not only that, but you are basically incentivizing people to quit their jobs and and live their lives on taxpayer dollars getting high 24/7 and some of those drugs have extreme effects on their futures like heroin and meth. This is WALL-E to the extreme.

I feel the same way about public housing. Why even have a job? I make $200k per year, and I don't want to spend $600K on a house -- yet that's what the average public housing unit costs in LA. If you win the poverty lottery, you get to live there for free. Well, what about EVERYONE else I know my age that doesn't work in tech and -- at current prices -- won't ever be able to buy a house? They've gotta work all day and live 6 adults to a house. But if you're poor, and you get the golden ticket, it's all gravy. Doesn't seem fair.

Again, it'd be great if everyone, you know, everyone could have a roof over their head. But how come if you work an average job you have to share an apartment with 2 other adults. And if you're poor and lucky, we just give you a brand new unit for free? And what about all the poor people that aren't lucky? They just get nothing, while someone else lives like a poor king.

There's got to be a better use for $600K...

Completely agree that the numbers are frustrating, but if you genuinely think people in public housing are living like kings and "it's all gravy", I recommend spending some time around a public housing development. These places are not all-inclusive resorts with luxurious lodging. The poor conditions in a lot of developments make the cost per unit even more frustrating, but there's not some colony of poor people who won the lottery and dance around all day laughing at what a fool you are for working for a living.

Spending per currently-homeless individual isn't necessarily a reliable metric, as people who are helped into homes are no longer counted in the denominator.