There is nothing in that analysis that suggests that the reductions aren't real. Quoting in "The Data" portion:

> Figure 2 shows that, measured by its point-in-time counts, Utah experienced a less dramatic, but still impressive 71 percent decrease in chronic homelessness since 2005. Yet should we trust even the point-in-time counts?

Yes. If you want to challenge them, go out and do point in time counts rather than suggest that someone is lying. In fact, challenging them in the manner that the writer is is fundamentally dishonest, suggesting again that research by its very nature shouldn't be trusted.

> In fact, as Figure 3 shows, there were major drop-offs in chronic homelessness during two separate periods: 2009–10 and 2014–15. If not for these two periods, chronic homelessness in Utah would have increased over the past decade.

Just because reductions appear during specific time periods during a research period does nothing to deny the fact that overall reductions occurred. This is like suggesting that a small uptick in violent crime means that crime hasn't reduced at all over the last several decades.

The entire article is anti-science, as the AEI all too often is. If you want to challenge research, you don't do it by suggesting someone is lying, you do it by using the scientific method. AEI really doesn't do any of that, it is primarily there to challenge research to protect support for conservative ideals while making them seem as if they are well researched.

They're not saying "reductions appeared during specific time periods, therefore they weren't real."

Reductions appeared during specific years, and Utah also changed the way it measured chronic homelessness in those specific years, in ways that we'd expect to reduce measured chronic homelessness. Specifically:

- in 2010, Utah stopped counting people in "transitional housing" as chronically homeless.

- in 2015, the Salt Lake region implemented a "new process for confirming whether individuals are chronically homeless."

> If you want to challenge research, you don't do it by suggesting someone is lying, you do it by using the scientific method.

If you want to challenge research, you don't do it by attacking the motives of the researchers or by brutally misstating their arguments to make them look ridiculous. You don't pretend that the research is just "suggesting someone is lying" when it's not. If "anti-science" means "willing to look into potential methodological issues with data provided by the government" then sign me up.

But this is what the AEI does. It produces op-ed information dolled up to look like research. I personally believe that the motives of the "think"-tank AEI should be held up first and foremost when discussing 'articles' that they produce.

They have an end goal in mind: uphold or attack research to support conservative ideologies.

Do you have a source for that? They appear to be a reputable, though conservative, think-tank [1].

I cannot find a rebuttal of the author's interpretation that the 91% statistic is largely due to reclassification. The author appears reasonable. Here is a quote from him:

"The state has rightly focused most intensely on the homeless who sleep on the street and who have serious problems with mental illness and addiction. Hundreds of people have been moved from the street and shelters into housing. Whether the overall numbers have plummeted the way Utah reports should not distract from these positive steps [2]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#...

[2] - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650317/Utahs-big-drop-...

Ok, great. Then post facts instead of "My family overheard..." I shouldn't have to call out hear-say to get more substantial data.