Federal homeless social policies for the 1990s

Abstract

While numbers are important, a substantial part of the disagreement concerning the number of homeless people and their characteristics derives from differing defi‐nitionsof homelessness. However, there is a consensus on basic needs to proceed with social policies that address homelessness, with the aim of ending it. Housing assistance is essential to ending homelessness and will need to be provided, at least in the short run, to all homeless and at‐risk households to enable them to obtain decent housing. The attrition in the number of unsubsidized low‐rent units and the loss of the single‐room occupancy(SRO) stock have been major causes of homelessness in the 1980s. Permanent housing must be coupled with other services to address the additional, nonhousing problems of a substantial portion of homeless people. The federal plan to end homelessness offers promise of developing a viable, coherent set of programs and policies, particularly if mainstream programs are improved and made accessible to homeless people. But carrying out a meaningful plan to end homelessness will require both committed and sustained political leadership and substantial increases in funding.     

Impacts of Heading Home Hennepin's Housing First programs for long-term homeless adults

This paper evaluates the impact of Heading Home Hennepin’s Housing First programs for long-term homeless individuals with work-limiting disabilities. These programs combine subsidized housing and extensive case management services to help program participants maintain stable housing. Using a matched comparison of housing-first participants and nonparticipants residing in public shelters, this study finds that housing-first placement is associated with a substantial decrease in public shelter use, an increase in public health insurance coverage, and a decrease in arrests and incarceration. Most of the decline in arrests is due to decreases in arrests for livability and drug-related charges and not for violent or property crime.     

How Stable is the Condition of Family Homelessness?

Although research has documented the majority of homelessness experienced by individuals and families in the US to be transitional rather than chronic, the mechanisms by which some families successfully escape homelessness while other do not remains relatively unclear. To provide more information to this area of inquiry, this study analyzed the transitional nature of homelessness for a sample of families with school-aged children who were homeless under the McKinney-Vento definition. By conducting a survey with over 1000 homeless families with children enrolled in two public school systems in Central Florida, we find that over a quarter of families exit homelessness in less than six months. We compare these families to those that remained homeless to examine the potential importance of demographic differences and other potential barriers to securing housing. Many of the commonly assumed barriers were not significant predictors of continued homelessness; the most salient difference between the groups was income underscoring the importance of employment opportunities for families to allow them to exit homelessness.     

What Interventions Work Best for Families Who Experience Homelessness? Impact Estimates from the Family Options Study

What housing and service interventions work best to reduce homelessness for families in the United States? The Family Options Study randomly assigned 2,282 families recruited in homeless shelters across 12 sites to priority access to one of three active interventions or to usual care in their communities. The interventions were long‐term rent subsidies, short‐term rent subsidies, and transitional housing in supervised programs with intensive psychosocial services. In two waves of follow‐up data collected 20 and 37 months later, priority access to long‐term rent subsidies reduced homelessness and food insecurity and improved other aspects of adult and child well‐being relative to usual care, at a cost 9 percent higher. The other interventions had little effect. The study provides support for the view that homelessness for most families is an economic problem that long‐term rent subsidies resolve and does not support the view that families must address psychosocial problems to succeed in housing. It has implications for focusing government resources on this important social problem.     

Do Local Economic Conditions Affect Homelessness? Impact of Area Housing Market Factors,Unemployment, and Poverty on Community Homeless Rates

This article estimates the impact of local housing and labor market conditions on area homelessness using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD’s) annual point-in-time counts of homelessness from 2007 to 2014. In cross-sectional models, the median rent, the share of households in rental housing, and the poverty rate have strong positive impacts on homelessness. Once area-fixed effects are included, only the median rent remains positive and significant. However, fixed-effect models find a positive relationship between poverty and homelessness in communities that maintain right-to-shelter policies, suggesting constraints in shelter bed supply may limit responses of homelessness to changes in economic conditions.     

Homeless families,singles, and others: Findings from the 1996 national survey of homeless assistance providers and clients

Abstract

The first question people typically ask about homelessness is, “How many people are homeless?” After that, questions usually turn to characteristics: “What are they like?” Basic demographic characteristics such as sex, age, family status, and race have always been of interest, in part because the homeless population appears to be very different from the general public and even from most poor people who are housed with respect to these characteristics. Often, because these differences are so dramatic, demographic characteristics are overinterpreted as representing the reasons for homelessness.

But as various studies have documented, most demographic factors quickly disappear as proximate causes when other factors representing personal vulnerabilities are available for examination. The underlying causes of homelessness, the structural conditions of housing and labor markets that turn vulnerabilities into loss of housing, do not lie within individuals at all and are thus difficult to include in analyses based on individual data.     

Public policy,perverse incentives,and the homeless problem

Is homelessness a housing problem per se? In this paper we employ a HUD study from 1984 and Census data from 1990 within the context of simultaneous empirical models to examine this and other issues relating to homelessness in the United States. Our central conclusion is that homelessness does not appear to be a national housing problem as such and that, given untoward incentives among actual and potential homeless populations, policies addressing homelessness should be directed at other instruments of change (such as mental health funding and expenditures to treat substance abuse).

     

The Evolution of Low‐Income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999

Abstract

The evolution of low‐income housing policy during the past 50 years can be divided roughly into two segments: the first running from 1949 to the 1973 Nixon moratorium on subsidized production programs and the second from 1973 to the present, marked by a diminished federal leadership role and an increased state and local role. After tracing the rise of the federal leadership role represented in the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1968, this article focuses on the development of three important policy instruments that mark the devolution of housing policy: housing vouchers, housing block grants, and the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit.

The three‐pronged strategy of vouchers, block grants, and tax credits has achieved reasonably good results and attracted an unusual degree of political consensus. A steady expansion of all three offers the most promising path to the “realization as soon as feasible” of the national housing goal.     

Subsidized housing,housing prices,and the living arrangements of unmarried mothers

Abstract

Although many studies estimate the effects of welfare benefits on mothers’ living arrangements, housing subsidies and prices are rarely the focus. This article uses a new longitudinal birth cohort study, the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, to examine the relationship between subsidized housing, housing prices, and the living arrangements of unmarried mothers three years after a nonmarital birth.

Results suggest that the availability of subsidized housing is negatively associated with marriage relative to living alone. Eligibility criteria and means testing in subsidized housing may make marriage a costly choice. Housing prices are positively associated with marriage, cohabitation, and living with family members relative to living alone. Economies of scale may be particularly important for single‐earner households when housing prices increase. Failure to control for housing costs and subsidies leads to underestimates of the effects of welfare and unemployment rates on the living arrangements of unmarried mothers.     

The physical and mental health status of homeless adults

Abstract

This paper reviews recent research on the physical and mental health status of homeless single adults and briefly summarizes definitional, sampling, and measurement problems. It presents findings from research examining the physical health status of homeless adults; the data suggest that homelessness places people at greater risk for specific health problems and also complicates treatment. The authors then review findings on the mental health status of homeless adults from several methodologically rigorous studies that carefully define and measure mental illness among the homeless population. The final section discusses what is known about the short‐ and long‐term service needs of the physically and mentally disabled homeless population.

The studies reviewed suggest that individuals with chronic physical or severe mental illnesses are more vulnerable than others to homelessness. Homelessness exacerbates physical and/or mental conditions and complicates their treatment. Despite myths to the contrary, research and demonstration programs have shown that most homeless individuals are willing to receive assistance. By linking health and mental health services to appropriate housing, such individuals can be treated and cared for in community settings. However, local communities often do not have the necessary resources to meet the long‐term needs of severely mentally ill or physically disabled homeless people.     

Low‐Income Housing Development,Poverty Concentration,and Neighborhood Inequality

Considerable debate exists about the merits of place‐based programs that steer new development, and particularly affordable housing development, into low‐income neighborhoods. Exploiting quasi‐experimental variation in incentives to construct and rehabilitate rental housing across neighborhoods generated by Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program rules, we explore the impacts of subsidized development on local housing construction, poverty concentration, and neighborhood inequality. While a large fraction of rental housing development spurred by the program is offset by a reduction in the number of new unsubsidized units, housing investment under the LIHTC has measurable effects on the distribution of income within and across communities. However, there is little evidence the program contributes meaningfully to poverty concentration or residential segregation.     

Is homelessness a housing problem?

Abstract

Homeless people have been found to exhibit high levels of personal disability (mental illness, substance abuse), extreme degrees of social estrangement, and deep poverty. Each of these conditions poses unique housing problems, which are discussed here. In the 1980s, the number of poor people has increased and the supply of low‐income housing has dwindled; these trends provide the background against which the homelessness problem has unfolded. Homelessness is indeed a housing problem, first and foremost, but the characteristics of the homeless are such as to make their housing problems atypical.     

The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Residential Instability: Evidence From the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

ABSTRACT

Millions of individuals and families in the United States do not have access to stable housing. Recent policies in the United States and the rest of the developed world emphasize programs intended to prevent homelessness through temporary financial assistance. This article explores the impact of the largest homelessness prevention program in U.S. history, the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), on residential instability, using a national sample of families with children enrolled in school. The identification strategy exploits variations on the location of HPRP providers. Using data on the ratio of K–12 students experiencing homelessness in school districts, we find that HPRP is associated with reductions in the percentage of homeless students for districts closer to an HPRP provider. However, the impacts of HPRP fade out when program benefits end, bringing into question whether homeless prevention can help families achieve self-sufficiency in the long run.     

Family Unification Program: Housing Services for Homeless Child Welfare–Involved Families

The Family Unification Program—a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development initiative to facilitate interagency collaboration between the child welfare and public housing service systems—aims to stabilize families at risk for parent–child separation by addressing housing needs. Findings from a randomized controlled trial suggest that families referred to the program experienced lower risk for homelessness and out-of-home placement compared with child welfare services as usual. The findings suggest that housing services offer an effective alternative to foster care.     

Measuring What Matters: A Call for a Meaningful Metric of Affordable Rental Housing Production Cost-Efficiency

The metric commonly used in debates and research concerning the cost-efficiency of multifamily rental housing production, total development cost per unit, sacrifices too much analytical power in return for its ease of computation. This article proposes a replacement metric, the subsidy per housing affordability equivalent (SHARE) ratio. This measure is applied to a set of 399 nonprofit-sponsored rental housing developments completed in California over the past decade. Evidence suggests that the use of SHARE would evaluate deeply subsidized family projects and mixed-use projects with commercial space more favorably than total development cost per unit would. The reverse is true for projects restricted to seniors and for those financed with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.     

Changing occupant characteristics in rural public housing in the Great Plains: 1977 to 1996

Abstract

Housing quality and affordability are growing concerns in rural areas, particularly in regions affected by economic restructuring and population decline. This article uses data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to assess changes in the characteristics of nonmetropolitan public housing residents in the Great Plains between 1977 and 1996.

Results indicate that public housing occupants were younger and more racially diverse in 1996 than in 1977. Also, a larger proportion received welfare benefits in addition to housing supplements. (In 1977, few households received both types of assistance.) Regression models reveal a significant positive relationship between changes in county population, unemployment rates, and economic designation and minority representation in public housing. Implications include the need for flexible measures that meet the changing needs of subsidized households. The characteristics of these households in the Great Plains region indicate the need for both region‐specific and coordinated housing and welfare policies.     

Homelessness Interventions in Georgia: Rapid Re-Housing,Transitional Housing,and the Likelihood of Returning to Shelter

Since 1987, billions of dollars in homeless assistance have been allocated annually by the U.S. federal government. Yet few evaluations of homelessness interventions exist. This study analyzes the likelihood that households in Georgia returned to shelter within two years of leaving one of three interventions: rapid re-housing (RRH), transitional housing (TH), and emergency shelter (ES), with the latter serving as a reference. Using propensity scores, RRH households were matched to comparable TH and ES households. Generalized linear mixed modeling then controlled for household characteristics as well as variation between intervention implementations. We find that the likelihood of returning to shelter did not seem to be affected by whether study households were gradually transitioned or rapidly placed into housing. Additionally, the effect of TH for households without children seems highly dependent on the intervention’s implementation, which deserves further study. Our findings are generalizable to a small, better resourced segment of the general homeless population.     

Estimates and public policy: The politics of numbers

Abstract

Estimates of the number of homeless persons in the United States are frequently said to range from 250,000 to three million. In fact, the latter number is an invalid guesstimate that developed staying power for political reasons. National estimates of homeless persons based on explainable methodologies actually range from 230,000 to 736,000, with the most likely estimates around the half‐million mark. Despite the confrontational politics surrounding the numbers issue in the 1980s, a consensus is developing in the 1990s among private groups, including some major advocacy organizations, and all levels of government regarding policy direction in assistance programs for the homeless. There is widespread recognition that the goal should be to end homelessness, not simply to provide emergency assistance. Permanent housing solutions for special populations are needed in the context of renewed efforts to combat poverty.

In the public debate about the policy implications of divergent national estimates of the numbers of homeless persons, a common assumption is that the estimates vary widely and inexplicably—anywhere from a few hundred thousand to three million or more. Those who do try to explain the odd discrepancy between the extremes seem to assume that any count is politically motivated. They say that it depends on how one defines homelessness and who is counting. In other words, the implication is that numbers derive from policy and politics, rather than the other way around.

Given such perceptions, it is not surprising that some who have neither the time nor, perhaps, the resources to judge the accuracy of estimates begin to feel that the truth must be somewhere in between, as if a mathematical average were equivalent to a political compromise. Others will believe the message if they like the messenger. In a recent book on homelessness, for example, the author confesses that he trusts estimates “made by people who live where ‘the rubber meets the road’… rather more than the bright theorists tucked away in ivory towers.”¹ Although many statistics are politically controversial, it is probably safe to say that the debate on homelessness during the past decade represents the apogee of political numerology. It is worth reviewing just how this came to pass.     

The Dilemmas of Frontline Staff Working With the Homeless: Housing First,Discretion, and the Task Environment

This article examines staff discretion in permanent supportive housing facilities run by a nonprofit agency claiming to use a Housing First approach. Field observation, archival data, and individual and group interviews with staff and clients were examined to better understand agency processes involved in intake, sanctions, and disposal of clients to evaluate Housing First fidelity. In their day-to-day interactions with clients, frontline workers' discretion is affected by working conditions such as lack of resources and heavy workloads, as well as by demands placed on the agency by members of its task environment. Implications for Housing First programs and homeless clients are discussed.