“Instead of providing proven systems of support to pregnant people experiencing homelessness, the city is choosing to delay help through an unnecessary study, failing to deliver what it already knows works.”
This spring, New York City proposed a new research study on pregnant people seeking shelter that raises significant ethical and methodological concerns. The study would randomly assign pregnant people arriving at the city’s Prevention Assistance and Temporary Housing (PATH) intake centers to one of three groups: one receiving $1,200 monthly to stay with family or friends (via the Pathway Home program), one immediately receiving CityFHEPS vouchers to move into permanent affordable housing, and a control group that would remain in a shelter awaiting their turn to receive CityFHEPS vouchers.
The city’s stated goal is to determine which intervention helps pregnant people avoid or shorten shelter stays. While it’s important that policy be guided by research-backed evidence, this study’s design, which withholds housing support from subjects based on chance, raises considerable ethical concerns while failing to meet methodological standards.
While random assignment through a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) can help identify results of scientific intervention, denying housing support to a group of pregnant people does not meet critical scientific and ethical standards. We already know that housing insecurity during pregnancy is associated with increased pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes–risks that cannot be justified in the name of scientific inquiry…