Update: Paul has blocked me on twitter.

Paul Constant reports that “fake news has come to Seattle” in regards to a Forbes report that the McKinsey study doesn’t actually exist. The reality is more complicated.

So far, only summaries of the McKinsey report have been released. This is what we have:

Unfortunately, despite its title, the “final” report contains less information about the study than the leaked “preliminary” discussion document. For example, on slide 9 it only shows three data points on the graph of annual data comparing rent and homelessness: 2007, 2014, and 2017. The discussion document shows each year from 2007–2017. This alteration obscures the fact that homelessness and rent prices were not correlated over that entire period.

The discussion document includes data on housing stock in the 0–30% and 30–50% AMI tiers, and rests its conclusions heavily on this data. The “final report” makes no mention of AMI tiers at all. The six page summary contains information on AMI tiers, but it has combined the 0–30% and 30–50% tiers into a single 0–50% tier. The six page summary (gosh it’s hard to keep these straight) makes no mention of the fact that “housing stock at or below 30% AMI remain[ed] constant” as was stated in the preliminary report.

The “final” report says nothing about the data sources used by the study, which consisted entirely of previously reported studies. It also omits that McKinsey interviewed 20–30 homelessness service providers.

Finally, unlike the discussion document, the “final report” contains no claim that the recent spike homelessness is driven by housing prices.

Why was so much “preliminary” research omitted from the final document? Did McKinsey consultants know that their research was flawed? Without seeing the full study, it is impossible to know. (If you don’t know what a study is, ask a scientist)

There are other questions about the study that I outlined in a post for Safe Seattle. Without seeing the full study, these questions cannot be addressed. I have reached out to a number of local journalists in an attempt to figure out where it is, but I have received no answers.

This story is extremely tedious, but I think it is important. Sloppy research can slip by unnoticed when researchers don’t show their work. If the city council members based their head tax vote on a flawed study that hasn’t been released in its entirety, then they weren’t making an informed decision.

Like this post? Hate it? Have more info? Let me know!

Email: mattinballard@gmail.com

Twitter: @mrhumungous