Homelessness is not a monolithic issue
October 2, 2024 Category: ExplainerDespite the often overgeneralized reactions of society at large, homelessness is not a monolithic issue. There are meaningful differences in the circumstances, causes, impact on individuals and families, and conditions of homelessness, which necessitate a varied and dynamic approach.
In cities across the United States, people are still experiencing the strain on the economy and the subsequent loss of financial stability for households everywhere in the aftermath of covid. Powered by the end of government-supported pandemic aid, the shrinking affordable housing market coupled with skyrocketing housing costs, and the unaffordability of basic necessities like food, homelessness is surging.
What do the numbers show?
As of January 2023, the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night hit the record-high figure of 653,104. Of this number, about 256,610 people, or 39.3%of the total homeless population, were living unsheltered (which applies to living on the street, in vehicles or otherwise outdoors, and in places unfit for human habitation). The total figure represents a 12% increase from 2022.
The other 60.7% of people were sheltered but without permanent or stable housing (which applies across a breadth of circumstances including supportive housing programs like shelters, “couch-surfing”, crowding in with family, and other kinds of temporary housing).
In Philadelphia as of 2023, there were 4,725 individuals experiencing homelessness; of that number, about 1,083 are living unsheltered while the rest, approximately 3,642 people, were living in shelters or other transitional housing programs. 370 households with children, or roughly 1,158 people, are in emergency shelters. The period between 2023 and 2024, however, saw a sharp increase in that number (in the third consecutive year of increases) to 5,191, which also includes a 38% increase in the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness during the same period.
The people who comprise these statistics are, of course, not identical in need, history, or circumstance. What would serve one family effectively might not serve another. Supportive services for a youth aging out of foster care and into independent adulthood would obviously have to look much different for a single adult with acute mental health and substance use issues, or a married parent with skills development needs.
The approach any city takes and the resources it allocates to eradicating homelessness depends largely on its attitude toward people experiencing it. Historically, the condition has been treated as behavioral and part of the identity of a person, or group of people, rather than recognized as a solvable condition of circumstance that requires holistic community support.
The recent ruling of Grants Pass v Johnson, wherein the US Supreme Court decided that cities have the right to take punitive action against individuals who take shelter on public property and employ provisions (blankets, pillows, tents, etc) against the elements – even where no alternate shelter is available.
Gaining the investment of city leaders and community members in researched, proven, human-centered solutions to homelessness instead of costly, cruel, and ultimately ineffectual punitive approaches has been difficult enough in the past, even before the ruling.
Positive Solutions
While many cities are still struggling to reconcile their outdated approaches to homelessness with the reality of the rising surge in housing instability, there are some cities that have implemented targeted solutions that seem to be working. Solutions like Housing First, Permanent Supportive Housing, and keeping the barriers to participation low have shown proven positive results.
Housing First describes an approach that prioritizes connecting people experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without mandated prerequisites of treatment, sobriety status, or otherwise – operating on the premise that addressing the main destabilizing factor of homelessness first allows people a safe base from which to begin to make plans, pursue goals and improve their quality of life. It is from this foundation of safety and stability that a person is best positioned to address personal issues, like financial or substance use struggles, successfully.
At the beginning of the pandemic, Houston received over $26 million in federal funds in an emergency allocation to protect and house the city’s homeless population. Houston applied those funds to long-term solutions in the Housing First model, like expanding the availability of permanent housing and resources for homelessness prevention. In 2011, right before Houston overhauled its entire system, the city’s homeless population was over 8,400 people, among the highest in the nation. By January 2020, the population stood at fewer than 4,000, a 55% decrease. The overhaul came after inefficiency of services, duplicative programs, and siloed efforts from community leaders, city government and nonprofits fundamentally hampered the effectiveness of efforts to address homelessness. Post- overhaul, Houston’s new collaborative approach has helped to house over 18,000 formerly unhoused people.
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is a model that combines affordable housing with targeted voluntary support services, all rooted in a Housing First approach. PSH offers stable housing with no time limit and adheres to the following principles: services should be multidisciplinary, meaning services offered should address the spectrum of tenant support needs including substance use support, employment skills training, and mental health treatment; services should be voluntary (but assertive) and not forced on tenants as a precondition for housing, but offered assertively whether requested or not; services should be housing-oriented, meaning an emphasis on helping tenants retain their housing, understand their rights and responsibilities as a tenant, and maintain a safe and healthy household.
Much of Houston’s housing success was due to its investment in PSH. Other cities have applied this model to serve various populations. For example, The Bronx, Milwaukee, and Cleveland all operate dedicated PSH sites and units dedicated to serving youth experiencing homelessness, including those who have aged, or are aging, out of foster care.
A study out of UC San Francisco in 2020 found that PSH can also make a significant positive impact on people experiencing chronic homelessness. The study assessed the effectiveness of Project Welcome Home, a PSH program that serves up to 200 of Santa Clara County’s most vulnerable chronically homeless people, including those acutely in need of mental health and substance use support. The researchers found that 86% of individuals successfully found housing and kept it for several years.
What all of these programs have in common is that they are considered low-barrier, which is to say there are few or no conditions to qualify for housing or other services, which is generally atypical of traditional systems. A few cities have implemented low-barrier transitional housing programs designed to attract individuals who are chronically unsheltered, vulnerable, and typically reluctant to enter traditional shelter systems.
For example, New York’s 2022 Subway Safety Plan included the expansion of targeted outreach efforts to connect unsheltered individuals to specialized, temporary housing resources like Safe Havens and stabilization beds. Both are smaller in scale than traditional shelters, often based in hotels or standalone sites, come equipped with onsite mental health, substance use, and case- management resources, and designed for people who are resistant to – or otherwise not served by – traditional housing settings.
The city invested $171 million in these and other resources to combat homelessness during the pandemic. Altogether, the total number of beds funded by the investment comes to about 2,300 by 2024, bringing the count of beds available to over 4,000.
Challenges Persist
In spite of the unprecedented investment, New York’s transitional housing model still struggled to successfully transition people into permanent housing. The challenges were multi-fold: For one, despite the low-barrier model being designed to attract people otherwise put off by the traditional model, there were not many Safe Havens or stabilization beds that offered private spaces. This turned out to be a major concern for those with trauma that would be triggered by sharing a close space with a stranger or several, as well as those who feared for their safety and/ or their possessions. For another, the severe shortage of affordable housing in New York City meant that there were very few homes for those in transitional housing to transition to.
Ultimately, it becomes clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing homelessness could never be effective, as the circumstances, causes and needs in question vary from individual to individual. Housing First, PSH, and low-barrier services are all optimistic, future-oriented approaches with holistic considerations built in.
City governments, nonprofit organizations, and leaders in philanthropy can learn from Houston and make investments in long-term permanent solutions rather than over-relying on temporary or transitional models that simply cycle people endlessly through ill-equipped systems. All invested agencies can learn that a collaborative approach, whether through private-public partnerships or otherwise, is infinitely more powerful than the arrested impact of siloed efforts. City governments can prioritize building and subsidizing affordable housing so that the availability of homes can finally meet the overwhelming need for them. Nonprofits, in turn, can commit to providing services in the Housing First model, reducing barriers and requirements that screen the most vulnerable people out of services they need the most. And philanthropists can be intentional about supporting initiatives that aim to address homelessness with an emphasis on long-term support, collaboration and self- agency, and housing as a human right.