Thread by @matt_kleinmann

This is a thread about how out-of-state lobbyists (continue) to misuse data to present bad-faith arguments to and peddle influence the #KSleg.

It started with this post: by @HaswoodForKS on HB 2430

(Also: #RockChalk & go #KUbball today!)

https://twitter.com/HaswoodForKS/status/1631379359020752909?s=20

If you want a quick recap of this committee hearing this week, read this excellent summary by the @KansasReflector:

kansasreflector.com/2023/03/03/kan…

Watching testimony, I noticed a huge disparity between the ~50 opponents to the bill that would criminalize homelessness & punish cities that refused to do so.

I also noticed that only 1 organization was speaking FOR the bill, which I expanded upon here:

https://twitter.com/matt_kleinmann/status/1631384392563056642?s=20

@Kansas_Heather also noticed that discrepancy in her constituency, and she later posted this and added her own experiences as a social worker.

Thank you, Representative Meyer.

https://twitter.com/Kansas_Heather/status/1631726328356511757?s=20

To which @judgeglock from the @InstituteCicero was paying attention and replied to (respectfully) disagree while continuing to push his agenda and try to influence Rep. Meyer:

https://twitter.com/judgeglock/status/1631760734743851009?s=20

His first reply to @Kansas_Heather misrepresented the thesis of this research summary: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK51958…

He cherry-picked one statement and presented it as if it summarized the entire article.

It doesn't do that AT ALL and I called it out here:

https://twitter.com/matt_kleinmann/status/1631795189755830274?s=20

To which @judgeglock replied:

> They declared the lack of evidence on health or cost savings "the inescapable finding of an impartial review of the evidence."

I highlighted his reference. Notice the ENTIRE rest of the conclusion he excludes:

https://twitter.com/judgeglock/status/1631824778171498496?s=20

@judgeglock continued:

> But the argument that there is no real evidence for effectiveness, but they hope there could be is obviously a very long way from the constant invocation that it is "evidence-based" and "data-driven."

Let's break that down:

https://twitter.com/judgeglock/status/1631825290933460994?s=20

1) On "Effectiveness" alone, which Glock says that (the authors state) there is no real evidence for, see the references to effectiveness in the study.

Note that:

1. PSH works for most people experiencing chronic homelessness

2. It addresses childhood behaviors and depression.

To that second point, the study referenced states that PSH (in this case, 'family supportive housing') helps children adjust better and helps parents feel empowered.

It also notes some CAUSES of homelessness: teen parenting, violence, and substance use.

@judgeglock continued with another research article, authored by a conservative (e.g. biased) thinktank:

> "it takes more than 10 PSH units to even remove a single individual from the streets"

Let's check and see if that's what the article says:

https://twitter.com/judgeglock/status/1631826122248798209?s=20

Let's start with the first figure:

The author notes that as PSH has risen, homelessness has gone down.

Notice anything?

2nd, consider @judgeglock's statement, mentioned in the conclusion:

Yes, data suggests "expanding PSH beds" takes 10 beds to get 1 person off the street.

But compared to shelters, PSH is 2x as effective!

And look what's best: Putting families directly into subsidized housing.

(Do you see the pattern here? If out-of-state lobbyists actually cared about reducing homelessness-using their own data no less-then they'd be lining up to INCREASE subsidized housing. But that conflicts with their ideology, so they twist the data instead to support their claims)

Next, @judgeglock mentioned a Boston study that showed half of the people experiencing homelessness and in a PSH program died over a 14 year study.

And you know what? He's right.

But he doesn't explain WHY.

Let's look closer at the actual study:

https://twitter.com/judgeglock/status/1631826551997186049?s=20

For context, this is an interesting study that requires some context. Couple of notes:

1) An older, mostly white pop. on Medicaid
2) Received integrated care
3) 95% had psychiatric issues
4) 93% had substance abuse
5) "38% were moved 45 times to avoid eviction"

That last one is noticeable because one individual in the study died while transitioning between apartments.

8 died from cirrhosis or internal bleeding
7 from heart disease
6 from cancer
5 from accidental overdoses,
<5 from chronic substance use disorders etc.

Let's go back to @judgeglock's flippant thesis:

> Obviously PSH was not a "solution" to homelessness for them.

Now we understand why the @InstituteCicero opposes PSH: they expected it to cure cancer and heart disease.

Or they're just being disingenuous.

Let's go back to the data, though, and point out the glaring flaw in Glock using this particular study to attack PSH:

1) The biggest challenge was EVICTIONS. (Hear that @KCTenants?)

The more we evict people experiencing homeless, according to the authors, the more they suffer.

2) 86% of the cohort studied had 3 or "co-occurring medical illnesses, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders."

86%

Using this study to attack PSH is like attacking life preservers when 86% of those receiving them were already drowning.

They needed help sooner.

@judgeglock concludes:

> The question for me is what can we do with our existing resources

Ah, but it's not.

https://twitter.com/judgeglock/status/1631826993086963712?s=20

When @judgeglock and others at conservative thinktanks and the @CityJournal misuse research to develop hot-takes, they do so because there is a lucrative grift in it for them:

Telling billionaires why we shouldn't have government or taxes.

This isn't "what we can do with our existing resources"

This is police fascism.

The intent is to increase police militarization of homelessness so the founder of @InstituteCicero can sell more cameras to police to catch homeless criminals.

pewtrusts.org/en/research-an…

The problem with this approach is that, as the #Kansas Constitution makes clear:

> "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and are instituted for their equal protection and benefit."

For Glock and his ilk to win, they must convince the #KSleg that their constituents in #Kansas are wrong, that people with lived experiences are wrong, that the data is wrong, and that they should buy more police surveillance equipment.

From this guy:
nymag.com/intelligencer/…

@threadreaderapp unroll

@threadreaderapp Unroll

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves why the same guy who owns a company that sells surveillance equipment to the police is bankrolling lobbyists to go across the country to get states to pass laws criminalizing homelessness.

wired.com/story/drive-lo…