The Spin Score

The Hamiltonian has begun using a dispassionate service to analyse and assess the presence of spin doctoring in responses to questions. We use this service occasionally and particularly when the spin score exceeds 5 out 10.  This service is employed not to disparage answers we receive, but to provide a helpful lens for those who seek clarity. We also hope that those providing answers will be on the same page with us, and strive to provide clarity. We hope that this a learning opportunity for all. 

At any time, the responding organization may provide an update to any of the responses, to help provide further clarity. The Hamiltonian will apply this analysis selectively to responses at an organizational level or to those responding as representatives of an organization. It will not employ this analysis to individuals who are representing their own personal views. 

Here is the analysis from the Homelessness in Hamilton: A Tragedy

Each is scored out of 10 — where 10 = definite, heavy spin doctoring, and 0 = direct, transparent, and objective answer.

1. Budget Allocation Between Emergency vs. Permanent Housing

Score: 8/10

• Why: This answer uses polished, optimistic language and refers broadly to strategy documents without directly answering the question on budget proportions. References to forthcoming updates and general values (e.g., "$4 million annually") are vague and deflect from the specific budget ratio asked.

• Spin Alert: Deflection and lack of precise figures on budget split.

2. Sustainable vs. Crisis Funding Focus

Score: 6/10

• Why: More direct than Q1. It outlines projects and dollar amounts (e.g., $8.2M), but the language is still heavily framed in a promotional tone ("helping individuals transition...with stability and dignity") rather than critically evaluating tradeoffs between temporary and permanent investments.

• Spin Alert: Framing success without comparing it to the scale of the need.

3. Data on Homelessness Transitions

Score: 9/10

• Why: The question specifically asks for monthly data on inflow vs. outflow. The response defers entirely to a website and does not answer the question in substance.

• Spin Alert: Evasion of specifics, reliance on external links.

4. Learning from Other Regions

Score: 5/10

• Why: Provides actual examples of collaborations and a planned multijurisdictional scan. Reasonably responsive, although the language is still optimistic and forward-looking without demonstrating past concrete learnings.

• Spin Alert: Future promises used to buffer present gaps.

5. Evidence-Based Solutions

Score: 4/10

• Why: A strong, relatively concrete answer. It names specific programs and targets, which adds credibility. However, the tone remains promotional and doesn’t mention challenges, gaps, or failed pilots.

• Spin Alert: Omission of limitations or evaluation results.

6. Shelter-to-Housing Ratio

Score: 7/10

• Why: Acknowledges the issue but skirts the direct question about the 6:1 ratio and whether the City is keeping pace. Cites federal funding and projected units instead.

• Spin Alert: Avoidance of the key ratio; reframes the discussion with unrelated metrics.

7. Measuring Effectiveness

Score: 3/10

• Why: One of the clearest answers. It lists metrics and describes funding mechanisms. There’s still spin in tone (“ensures resources are directed where they have the greatest impact”) but it's informative.

• Spin Alert: Language is polished but doesn't undermine the transparency.

8. New Partnerships or Innovations

Score: 5/10

• Why: Mentions real partnerships and their impact. Doesn't give many specifics about innovations or how these partnerships tangibly improve outcomes. Reads more like a press release.

• Spin Alert: Feel-good language without performance detail.

9. Criticism of Temporary Solutions

Score: 6/10

• Why: Acknowledges criticism and affirms long-term goals. But the answer is clearly crafted to justify rather than critically engage with the concern. Doesn’t explain how the City prevents “temporary” from becoming de facto permanent.

• Spin Alert: Justificatory framing without critical self-assessment.

10. Additional Information

Score: 4/10

• Why: Introduces a relevant initiative and explains its value. Feels more like additional PR than a response to an open-ended prompt, but adds something substantive.

• Spin Alert: Framing as a positive solution with minimal self-critique.

OVERALL AVERAGE SCORE: 6.1 / 10

Summary:

The responses reflect moderate spin doctoring. There's a clear pattern of:

• Avoiding direct answers to critical or numerical questions,

• Using optimistic, promotional language, and

• Redirecting to documents or webpages instead of providing precise information.

The City's answers show strategic communication, aiming to maintain a positive public image while minimizing exposure to criticism or negative data. While some information is present, much of it is framed, incomplete, or avoids the harder truths.

Photo by Jen Dries on Unsplash