Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Massachusetts taxpayers are paying $3,870 per migrant family per week for shelter costs, with total spending nearing $1 billion.
1. Summary of the results
The claim that Massachusetts taxpayers are paying $3,870 per migrant family per week for shelter costs, with total spending nearing $1 billion, is partially supported by some analyses [1], which report that the state is on course to spend $1 billion on the state’s emergency shelter program for FY25, with costs working out at about $3,496 per week per family, not $3,870 [1]. Other analyses support the claim that the state has spent nearly $1 billion to house the state’s incoming migrants [2] [3], but do not provide a weekly cost per migrant family. Some analyses do not provide any relevant information to support or contradict the claim [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
Some key context is missing from the original statement, such as the total number of migrant families being housed, which would be necessary to understand the overall cost [1]. Additionally, the breakdown of the costs per week per family is not provided, which could include other expenses beyond shelter [1]. Alternative viewpoints, such as the efforts of the Healey-Driscoll Administration to lower shelter costs and help families find stable, permanent housing, are also not considered [10]. Furthermore, the long-term benefits of providing shelter to migrant families, such as increased economic productivity and social cohesion, are not mentioned [1].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement may contain potential misinformation, as the reported weekly cost per migrant family is $3,870, whereas some analyses report a lower cost of $3,496 per week per family [1]. This discrepancy could be due to bias in the reporting, with some sources potentially exaggerating the costs to support a particular narrative [2] [3]. The Massachusetts GOP may benefit from this framing, as it could be used to criticize the governor's handling of the migrant crisis [2]. On the other hand, the Healey-Driscoll Administration may benefit from a more nuanced discussion of the costs and benefits of providing shelter to migrant families [10].