The State of Homelessness: A Comparative Analysis of Homeless Policies in the Four Most Populous U.S. States.
David Gallegos, MS, MPH
Senior Executive | Advisor | Board Member | Driving Value Through Data, Analytics, and Technology | Transformation and Change Leader | Strategist | Collaborator | Partner Driving Growth and Innovation
I. Introduction
Homelessness remains one of the most pressing social issues in the United States, affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals and families. ?People experiencing homelessness are individuals or families lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. According to recent estimates, on any given night, over 770,000 people are experiencing homelessness, either living on the streets, in shelters, or in transitional housing?(de Sousa & Henry, 2024). The number is only poised to grow as more than two thirds of American families live paycheck to paycheck, making them one crisis away from homelessness?(Batdorf, 2024).
Homelessness in the United States has fluctuated throughout its history, with notable surges during the colonial period, pre-industrial era, post-Civil War years, the Great Depression, and the present day.? Modern homelessness is largely a result of failed policies, underfunded programs leading to affordable housing shortages, stagnant wages amidst rising rents and housing costs, inadequate safety nets, and inequitable access to quality healthcare (including mental health care), education, and economic opportunities.? Mass incarceration also plays a significant role?(The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine, 2018).?
Homelessness is an urgent public health issue and a humanitarian crisis affecting cities, suburbs, and rural towns in every state. Housing is a social determinant of health; its absence negatively impacts overall health and life expectancy. Tens of thousands of people die annually due to the dangerous conditions of living without housing—conditions exacerbated by climate change and extreme weather. People experiencing homelessness die, on average, twenty years earlier than people that have stable housing (Meyer, Wyse, & Logani, 2023).
While the federal government plays a crucial role in funding and guiding homelessness initiatives, state governments have substantial autonomy in shaping and implementing policies tailored to their unique contexts. The diversity in approaches among states provides a rich area for study, offering insights into what strategies may be most effective in different environments.
This article aims to compare and analyze the homelessness policies of the four most populous states in the United States: California, Texas, Florida, and New York. These states are not only the most populous states in the U.S. but also exhibit significant diversity in their social, economic, and political landscapes. California, known for its high cost of living and extensive urban areas, faces unique challenges in addressing homelessness. Texas, with its vast geography and varied population, adopts different strategies influenced by its political climate. Florida's policies reflect its demographic diversity and economic disparities, while New York's approaches are shaped by its dense urban centers and longstanding social service systems.
By examining the homelessness policies of these four states, this article aims to uncover valuable insights and lessons that can inform more effective and equitable approaches to reducing homelessness across the nation.
To achieve this objective, the paper will:
The structure of this paper will begin with a general overview of the homelessness crisis in the United States, emphasizing its disproportionate impact on communities of color and other vulnerable populations. Following this, it will explore the causes of homelessness, and the various policies enacted nationwide to address the issue. After providing a national perspective, the paper will delve into each of the country’s most populous states, detailing the homeless situation, unique trends within these populations, and the specific policies employed to combat homelessness. The effectiveness of these policies will also be scrutinized. Finally, the paper will reflect on the different policies through qualitative and quantitative analyses, culminating in evidence-based recommendations for policy considerations that other states may want to adopt.
??
II. Homelessness in the United States
Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) commissions a survey to count both sheltered and unsheltered homeless individuals on a single night.? Leveraging local community organizations called Continuums of Care (CoCs) who perform the surveys in their respective jurisdictions, HUD is able to estimate the number of homeless people on a single night – referred to as the Point-in-Time (PIT) count (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2024).? The survey estimates the number of unsheltered and sheltered homeless individuals, families, and youth.? Unsheltered homelessness occurs when people primarily sleep in places not meant for housing, while sheltered homelessness includes stays in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or safe havens?(Office of Community Planning and Development, 2024).?
In 2024, the PIT estimated 771,480 people in the United States experienced homelessness, equating to about 23 out of every 10,000 people. This marked an 18% increase from 2023, adding over 118,000 people and resulting in the highest count since reporting began in 2007.? Of these, 64% were in shelters, transitional housing, or safe havens, while 36% were unsheltered?(de Sousa & Henry, 2024).
This survey found that while all demographics saw increases in homelessness, with families experiencing a 39% rise and individuals a 10% rise, Black, African American, and Indigenous people were disproportionately affected. Black individuals, who make up 12% of the U.S. population, comprised 32% of all homeless people. In 2023 Asian and Asian American individuals saw the highest percentage increase in homelessness, with a 40% overall rise and a 64% rise in unsheltered homelessness.? Hispanic individuals saw the largest numerical increase, with a 28% rise between 2022 and 2023, accounting for 55% of the total increase in homelessness, primarily in sheltered settings. Other key insights from the report included:
Homelessness is driven by a complex interplay of structural, economic, and individual factors. Key contributing factors include economic instability, health and disability issues, domestic violence, and systemic inequities.? But the primary factor that drives people into homelessness is the lack of affordable housing.
In the United States, one out of every ten people live in poverty, struggling to afford essential necessities such as nutritious food, healthcare, and housing?(Semega, Kollar, Creamer, & Mohanty, Revised: September 2021). Unemployment, underemployment, and low wages prevent individuals from affording stable housing. ?Many individuals, especially those with disabilities, injuries, or chronic conditions like arthritis, encounter obstacles in finding and keeping jobs.? The rising costs of living, particularly in urban areas, exacerbate this issue, as many people struggle to make ends meet despite being employed. Economic recessions and job market fluctuations can further destabilize housing security for vulnerable populations?(Heston, 2023).
Affordable housing shortages strain families financially, forcing difficult choices between housing costs, food, and other basic necessities.? Over half of households in the US must allocate more than 50% of their income to housing expenses, marking an unprecedented level of rent burden?(Padgett, 2020).? This economic burden disproportionately affects low-income families, limiting access to medical care and contributing to health issues such as delayed treatment and increased emergency room visits. Children in areas with high housing costs often experience poorer health outcomes, increased behavioral problems, and lower academic performance, highlighting the critical link between stable housing and overall well-being?(Braveman, Dekker, Egerter, Sadegh-Nobari, & Pollack, 2011).
Health and disability issues also play a crucial role. Mental health disorders, substance abuse, and physical disabilities are prevalent among the homeless population. These conditions can hinder an individual's ability to maintain stable employment and housing.? There exists a complex interplay between mental health challenges and homelessness. Severe mental illness contributes to 20-30% of visible homelessness in American cities, exacerbated by the consequences of deinstitutionalization starting in the 1960s, which saw psychiatric patients transitioned into group homes, shelters, and streets?(Padgett, 2020).
Conversely, homelessness profoundly impacts mental health, as evidenced by decades of research. Compared to housed individuals, homeless individuals experience significantly higher rates of depression, suicidal ideation, trauma symptoms, and substance abuse.
Recent studies indicate that over half of homeless and marginally housed individuals suffer from traumatic brain injuries, a prevalence much higher than the general population. Qualitative interviews with street homeless individuals vividly depict the daily hardships and emotional toll of exposure to the elements, as well as the stigma and mistreatment from bystanders and law enforcement?(Padgett, 2020). Moreover, inadequate access to healthcare and supportive services exacerbates their situations, making it difficult for them to receive the necessary treatment and support.?
Healthy homes are vital for promoting both physical and mental well-being. They provide safety and protect against physical hazards, whereas poor-quality housing contributes to chronic diseases, injuries, and developmental issues, particularly affecting children. The average life span of a homeless person is almost 20 years shorter than that for the general population?(Romaszko, Cymes, Dragańska, Kuchta, & GlińskaLewczuk, 2017).? In San Francisco, homeless youth face a mortality rate over ten times higher than their peers in stable housing?(Auerswald, Lin, & Parriott, 2016).
Domestic violence is a significant cause of homelessness, especially among women and children. Many individuals become homeless as they flee abusive relationships, often lacking safe and affordable housing alternatives. Shelters and transitional housing programs are essential for these individuals, but the availability of such resources is often limited.
The trauma and threat posed by abusive relationships can force victims to flee their homes urgently, seeking safety and shelter. In many cases, these individuals find themselves without stable housing options, as escaping abuse often means leaving behind familiar environments and support networks. This vulnerability is compounded by financial dependence on abusers, lack of affordable housing alternatives, and the psychological impact of prolonged abuse (Zhao, 2023).?
Systemic inequities contribute to higher rates of homelessness among racial and ethnic minorities. There is a deep-rooted history of housing discrimination in the US, dating back to the theft of land from Indigenous and Black communities. This discrimination has been perpetuated through systemic racist policies such as redlining, restrictive covenants, and public housing practices that fostered residential segregation. Additionally, it manifests organically in the housing market through practices like landlord and real estate agent bias, predatory lending, and discriminatory appraisal methods. These forms of discrimination disproportionately impact Black, Indigenous, and Latinx residents. ?Racism in other sectors, such as the criminal justice system and mass incarceration policies, perpetuates cycles of housing insecurity. Discrimination in education and employment practices further exacerbates disparities in educational attainment and income, contributing to higher levels of housing instability among Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities. These populations face systemic discrimination and barriers to employment, housing, and healthcare. (Pitkin, Elder, & DeRuiter-Williams, 2022).
The contributing factors above ultimately impact one’s ability to afford housing.? The lack of affordable housing is really the primary factor that drives homelessness?(Heston, 2023). A severe shortage of affordable housing options leaves many individuals and families without access to stable living conditions. This shortage is particularly pronounced in high-cost cities where the demand for housing far exceeds the supply of affordable units. The gap between income levels and housing costs continues to widen, pushing more people into homelessness (Jenkins, 2024).
Housing is the largest expenditure for most American families, and the cost of both homeownership and renting continues to climb. This growing financial burden is often measured by the housing cost burden, defined as the percentage of income a household spends on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments, utilities, fuel costs, property insurance, and taxes. Affordable housing is typically defined as spending 30% or less of household income on these expenses (Whitney, 2024).
This issue spans across all income levels, but the lowest incomes experience the highest housing cost burden rates. For instance, more than 80% of households earning less than $30,000 experience housing cost burden rates. This trend underscores that housing affordability is a widespread problem affecting a broad segment of the population (Whitney, 2024).
The repercussions of high housing costs extend beyond financial strain, significantly impacting health and well-being. The stress associated with housing-related financial burdens, frequent relocations, limited mobility, and restricted housing choices correlates with poorer self-rated health and lower levels of psychological well-being. When families are forced to allocate a large portion of their income to housing, their ability to meet other essential needs diminishes (Taylor, 2018).
High housing costs often result in less spending on nutrition and healthcare, both crucial for maintaining good health. Families facing housing cost burdens may delay medical care, skip necessary prescriptions, and struggle to buy sufficient food, leading to adverse health outcomes. In 2022, 11.7 million renter households spent more than half of their income on housing, leaving little room for other necessities (National Low Income Housing Coalition - b, 2024).
Recent increases in other household costs, such as food and transportation, have further strained household finances, exacerbating the pressure on already burdened families. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) rose 3.4% between 2022 and 2023.? This increase followed an increase of 6.5% over the previous year, reflecting higher costs in many essential areas (Carter, 2024).
The interplay of these factors creates a multifaceted and challenging issue that requires comprehensive and multifaceted solutions. Addressing homelessness effectively necessitates coordinated efforts across economic, healthcare, social services, and housing sectors to tackle the root causes and provide sustainable support for those affected.? Solutions must include increasing affordable housing supply, enhancing economic opportunities, providing comprehensive healthcare services, and implementing targeted interventions for vulnerable populations (National Alliance to End Homelessness - b, 2023).? By alleviating the financial strain of housing, we can improve overall health outcomes and enhance the quality of life for millions of Americans.
Over the past decade, trends in homelessness have shown both progress and setbacks. While some states have seen reductions in homelessness due to effective policy interventions and increased funding, others have experienced rises, particularly in unsheltered homelessness. ?The policies of the four most populous U.S. states were selected for review due to their diversity in populations, geographies, and politics.
?
III. ?Homelessness in the four (4) most populous states
California
Homelessness continues to grow in California, a state that has consistently topped the list for the largest homeless population in the United States for over a decade. According to the latest Point in Time report, more than 187,000 individuals are experiencing homelessness in California, a 3.1% increase since 2023 and a 34.6% increase since 2007. This alarming figure represents 30% of the entire U.S. homeless population, despite California accounting for only 12% of the country's total population?(Dickey, Fitzpatrick, & Feng, 2024).
California also holds the highest percentage of homeless individuals living without shelter, with 66% of its homeless population unsheltered. This means nearly half of all unsheltered people in the U.S. are in California. Additionally, African American individuals are disproportionately affected, comprising 7% of the state's population but 29% of those experiencing homelessness. The share of Black or African American people, as well as American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous people experiencing homelessness, is five times greater than their respective shares of the state's overall population?(State of California BCSH, 2024).
At least 90% of adults experiencing homelessness in California became homeless while living in the state, primarily due to the dire lack of affordable housing. This finding challenges the "magnet theory" that suggests homeless people flock to California, showing instead that the crisis is largely homegrown?(Hart, 2023).
Over the past decade, much has been tried to address this crisis.? This includes the enactment of a series of bills and regulations meant to deal with chronic homelessness by building new housing and transforming the state’s mental health system. These legislative actions include pushing for comprehensive and integrated supports, expanding physical and behavioral health services, creating a range of safe and stable housing options, updating long-standing eligibility rules for involuntary treatment, and implementing new pathways for treating individuals with severe mental health disorders who are at risk of homelessness or incarceration?(Colletti, 2022).
These laws have sparked a sharp divide among critics and supporters. Proponents see them as crucial, long-overdue humanitarian efforts to assist a vulnerable population, while opponents express serious concerns about potential infringements on civil liberties. This polarization underscores the challenge of balancing individual rights with the community's need to provide care and support to its most at-risk constituents. The ongoing debate highlights the complexity and urgency of finding effective solutions to California's homelessness crisis?(Wiener, 2023).
Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP)
HEAP was a $500 million block grant program designed to provide direct assistance to cities, counties and Continuums of Care (CoCs) to address the homelessness crisis throughout California. HEAP was authorized by Senate Bill (SB) 850, which was signed into law by on June 27, 2018?(Brown, Podesta, & Puddefoot, 2018). HEAP was guided by two primary objectives: crisis response and flexibility. The legislation required grantees to declare a shelter crisis and utilize funds for urgent interventions such as prevention, diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs, and emergency aid, resulting in significant investments in crisis interventions and emergency sheltering.
HEAP funds were allocated to Continuums of Care (CoCs) and major cities to provide immediate emergency aid to individuals experiencing homelessness or facing imminent risk. The program's parameters were deliberately broad, allowing CoCs and the 11 major cities to innovate and develop tailored programs that address specific community needs. While the examples provided are not exhaustive, eligible uses of HEAP funds include?(California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council, 2018):
HEAP's flexible funding options enabled local entities to address their community's homelessness challenges systematically. This flexibility allowed local homelessness service systems to identify gaps, pilot new programs, strategically allocate funds, build partnerships, leverage community resources, and respond swiftly to emerging challenges. This approach prioritized client needs while effectively managing the homelessness crisis.
HEAP funds primarily supported the expansion of local shelter capacities and provision of essential services to homeless individuals. Specifically, $178 million funded 208 capital projects statewide, resulting in the addition of 6,346 beds and 586 housing units, with a strong emphasis on emergency shelters?(California Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2022).
Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention Grant Program (HHAP):
HHAP is a block grant initiative designed to provide funding to jurisdictions in California. Its primary objective is to support efforts to address homelessness by enhancing regional coordination and expanding local capacity. HHAP grants are intended to fund projects and services that help homeless individuals and families move into permanent housing and maintain their housing stability. The program focuses on utilizing best-practice strategies to effectively allocate resources and combat homelessness across the state.? Initiated in 2020, the program has provided nearly $4 billion in grants?(The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, 2024).
The HHAP program alone provides services to 100,000–130,000 Californians experiencing homelessness every year. Across funding rounds, approximately 40-50% of people accessing HHAP services exited unsheltered homelessness and entered some kind of sheltered living arrangement, with about 20-25% securing permanent housing?(California Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2024).?
Senate Bill 326 and Assembly Bill 531 (Proposition 1)
The primary goal of SB 326 was to revise and expand the scope of the Mental Health Services Act to align with the evolving demands of behavioral health care. This bill notably widened its services to incorporate treatments for substance use disorders and emphasized support for individuals with severe mental illness. In addition, the legislation advocated for enhanced housing and workforce development resources and placed a significant emphasis on prevention and the introduction of innovative treatment programs?(Henderson, 2024).
Assembly Bill (AB) 531 proposed a substantial financial initiative with a $6.38 billion bond intended to establish over 11,000 new treatment beds and supportive housing units, along with outpatient services that address a comprehensive spectrum of mental health conditions. This initiative represents the largest proposed expansion in California’s behavioral health infrastructure to date. It also includes specialized housing solutions targeted at populations at high risk of homelessness and those suffering from behavioral health issues. ?This program was designed to provide vulnerable individuals with safe environments conducive to stabilization and recovery?(Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, 2023).
Both bills were components of Proposition 1, which was narrowly ratified in March 2024 through a public ballot initiative?(Hwang & Kuang, 2024). Despite the intentions behind these legislative efforts, there has been considerable opposition. Critics, including prominent organizations such as the California ACLU, argue that these measures might redirect funds from voluntary, community-based mental health services, which are considered crucial by many advocates. Furthermore, there is a concern that an increased emphasis on adding psychiatric beds as a primary solution to homelessness might overlook the more fundamental requirement for permanent, affordable, supportive housing?(Henderson, 2024).
Opponents also challenge the push towards expanding involuntary treatment measures, questioning the effectiveness of such approaches. They cite reports indicating that forced treatment often results in increased distress and harm rather than effective care, raising ethical and practical questions about the implementation of these legislative measures?(Henderson, 2024).
CARE Court Program
The CARE Court Program, established by SB 1338 and formally known as the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Act, introduces a novel civil court process specifically designed for individuals with untreated severe mental health disorders who are at heightened risk of homelessness or incarceration. This program focuses on adults suffering from untreated schizophrenia or other severe psychotic disorders, and it may also include those with serious substance use disorders?(Habeshian, 2023).
The CARE Court allows designated parties, including family members, healthcare providers, and first responders, to petition a civil court to initiate a CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan for the individual in question. This comprehensive plan is designed to encompass treatment options, housing resources, and other supportive services. It mandates regular court reviews to assess compliance and monitor progress, ensuring that the interventions are effective and adaptive to the individual’s evolving needs?(Disability Rights California, 2024).
Proponents of the CARE Court herald it as a compassionate and structured approach that provides crucial support to those with severe mental health issues who might otherwise remain without access to necessary care. They argue that the program facilitates the stabilization and integration of individuals with severe mental illnesses into community-based settings, emphasizing respect for personal autonomy and providing well-rounded support?(Dembosky, 2023).
However, the program has attracted criticism from groups, who express concern over the program's potential reliance on involuntary treatment strategies. Critics argue that such approaches can lead to distress and harm, undermining the therapeutic objectives of the treatment. Additionally, there are fears that the emphasis on this new court-mandated system could divert funds away from voluntary, community-based mental health services and peer support, particularly affecting marginalized communities. These detractors emphasize the need for a system that prioritizes voluntary participation and the preservation of individual rights, suggesting that the CARE Court may need significant modifications to align with these principles?(Dembosky, 2023).
Conservatorship Law Update (SB 43)
SB 43 made a significant update to the state's conservatorship laws, focusing primarily on individuals with severe mental health disorders and chronic homelessness. This bill, in conjunction with the CARE Courts, aims to refine the process of establishing conservatorships for those who, due to mental health challenges, are deemed unable to care for themselves.
The bill introduces several critical amendments to the existing framework. It broadens the criteria for placing an individual under conservatorship, especially targeting those who are chronically homeless and frequently detained due to mental health crises. The legislation also seeks to streamline the legal procedures required to initiate and maintain conservatorships, thus reducing the administrative burden and expediting the delivery of necessary care. Furthermore, it incorporates measures for enhanced oversight and routine evaluations of conservatorship cases, striving to balance the urgency of intervention with the safeguarding of individual rights?(Riquelmy, 2023).
Endorsed by the National Alliance on Mental Illness California and several major city mayors, proponents argue that the revised law addresses previous challenges in delivering mental health treatment to the most vulnerable populations. They highlight that the changes could lead to better protection for these groups, a reduction in chronic homelessness, and more efficient care delivery?(Ma & Chamchikh, 2024).
However, the bill faced significant opposition from critics like Human Rights Watch, who raise concerns about the potential for misuse?(Ensign & Raphling, 2023). They argue that the expanded criteria and simplified procedures could pave the way for power abuses, potentially stripping individuals of their civil liberties without adequate judicial oversight. Critics also advocate for a greater emphasis on voluntary services and broader access to mental health care, suggesting that a focus on empowerment and resource enhancement could be a more ethical and effective approach. Moreover, there are deep concerns about the possible infringement on personal freedoms, with fears that individuals could be too readily placed under conservatorship against their will?(Barnard, 2023).
Project Homekey
Project Homekey is a $1.4 billion statewide initiative launched during the COVID-19 pandemic to acquire and occupy hotels, motels, and other properties to house people experiencing homelessness across California. The program's long-term goal is to convert most of these properties into permanent housing. As of February 16, 2024, Homekey has funded 15,319 homes through 250 projects, with over 167,000 households projected to be served over the project's lifetime?(California Department of Housing & Community Development, 2024). This rapid development was made possible by the program's emphasis on the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, which significantly reduced construction time and costs compared to traditional housing development methods.
The program’s success is not only measured by the number of units created but also by its ability to support a diverse population, including families, veterans, and young people transitioning out of foster care. The integration of supportive services, such as mental health care and substance abuse treatment, has been crucial in helping residents stabilize their lives and move towards self-sufficiency.
Launched in 2020, Homekey builds on the earlier Project Roomkey, which temporarily housed homeless individuals in hotels and motels during the COVID-19 pandemic to mitigate the spread of the virus. Homekey has since evolved to include a broader range of permanent and interim housing solutions, including the conversion of various properties such as hotels, motels, and commercial buildings into affordable housing units?(Tingerthal, 2021).
Administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the program continues to expand its scope, with recent awards funding innovative projects like the conversion of a hospital and the use of modular construction models to rapidly provide housing solutions. This initiative demonstrates the potential for creative approaches in addressing homelessness and providing essential services to vulnerable populations across California?(Espinoza, 2024).
Other Legislation
California has passed dozens of other bills aimed at addressing homelessness.? Examples of these include?(Yarbrough, 2023):
Despite these programs, homelessness has continued to grow in California.? New research from the University of California indicates that California’s homelessness crisis is exacerbated by a severe shortage of affordable housing and emergency shelter?(Kushel, et al., 2023). The study identified economic, social, and health factors contributing to homelessness, highlighting high housing costs and low incomes as major causes, with loss of income being the most cited reason.?
California has made significant investments in temporary housing and enhanced its collaboration with local governments to address homelessness. ?These investments in homelessness-focused programs grew from $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2018–19 to $3.8 billion in 2020–21.? The state has adopted a proactive approach by allocating substantial, though often temporary, funding for infrastructure and flexible aid to localities. Despite these efforts, California continues to face a substantial homelessness crisis, necessitating ongoing commitment and resources to tackle the challenges effectively?(California State Auditor, 2024).? Several key factors contribute to this ongoing challenge:
Addressing these issues requires a more comprehensive and coordinated approach at all levels of government, with a continued focus on strategic funding, efficient resource allocation, and cohesive implementation of homelessness solutions across California.
?
Texas
Texas, the second most populous state in the U.S., has managed to maintain one of the lowest rates of homelessness per capita in the country.? At the end of 2024, Texas had approximately 28,000 individuals experiencing homelessness, 9 in every 10,000, with a notable portion living unsheltered.? This was a 2% increase over 2023, but it represented over a 30% decrease since 2007?(de Sousa & Henry, 2024).? Over the past two decades, Texas has relied on public/private partnerships to develop affordable housing and support individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless (TICH)
In 1995, the 74th Texas Legislature established the Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless (TICH). This legislative action mandates TICH to coordinate the state's resources and services to address homelessness effectively. TICH operates as an advisory committee to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA), playing a crucial role in shaping policies and programs aimed at reducing homelessness across the state.
In 2012, TICH published Texas' first state strategic plan to address homelessness, titled "Pathways Home: A Framework for Coordinating State Administered Programs with Continuum of Care Planning to Address Homelessness in Texas." This comprehensive plan outlines a framework for aligning state-administered programs with local Continuum of Care (CoC) efforts, emphasizing a collaborative approach to tackling homelessness. The plan focuses on enhancing coordination, improving service delivery, and leveraging resources to provide effective and sustainable solutions for individuals and families experiencing homelessness?(Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs - a, 2024).? Based on this plan, Texas has launched several programs to address homelessness.
Healthy Community Collaboratives (HCC)
Beginning in 2015, the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (HHSC) launched the Healthy Community Collaboratives (HCC) to address homelessness. This initiative was introduced in five metropolitan areas and two rural regions, specifically targeting individuals experiencing homelessness who have serious mental illness or co-occurring substance use disorders. The HCC's primary goal is to reduce barriers to treatment by fostering collaboration between public and private sectors to provide housing and coordinated, recovery-oriented mental health and substance use care. This holistic approach brings together individuals, agencies, organizations, and community members to tackle complex issues that cannot be effectively addressed by a single group alone?(Texas Health and Human Services, 2024).
The HCC model is based on the "Housing First" principle, which prioritizes providing stable housing to individuals experiencing homelessness before addressing other needs. Each HCC site tailors its strategies to meet the unique needs of its community, but all have developed a coordinated assessment process to facilitate housing placement and encourage participation in mental health or co-occurring treatment services. This approach has shown promise in reducing barriers to treatment and addressing the complex needs of individuals experiencing homelessness with mental health and substance use disorders (Texas Institute for Excellence in Mental Health, 2019).
Supportive Housing Services
Supportive Housing services in Texas are integrated into the Performance Contracts of all thirty-nine Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs) and Local Behavioral Health Authorities (LBHAs). These services are designed to assist individuals in locating, moving into, and retaining housing, as well as in developing treatment plans to facilitate recovery.? The provision of these services is also guided by the “Housing First” model, which prioritizes securing permanent housing for individuals experiencing homelessness before addressing other needs such as mental health and substance use disorders.? This model recognizes that stable housing is a crucial first step in recovery and improving quality of life. Once housed, individuals receive home-based skills training to help them maintain their housing and achieve greater independence. The focus of supportive housing is on enhancing functioning and quality of life, rather than solely on symptom reduction.
Supportive Housing services emphasize the provision of flexible and voluntary services. Individuals have the option to accept or refuse additional services, but staff are committed to continuing supportive engagement around housing and crisis planning as needed. This approach is designed to meet the complex needs of individuals experiencing homelessness with mental health and substance use disorders, reducing barriers to treatment and promoting long-term recovery?(Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless, 2019).
Homeless Housing and Services Program (HHSP)
The Homeless Housing and Services Program (HHSP) was initiated during the 81st Texas Legislature through an appropriations rider and later codified in the 82nd Texas Legislature. This program is designed to provide financial support to Texas' nine largest cities to enhance services for homeless individuals and families. Cities benefiting from HHSP funding include Arlington, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Plano, and San Antonio, all of which have populations of 285,500 or greater.
HHSP funding supports a range of activities aimed at addressing homelessness and preventing it. This includes the construction, development, or procurement of housing specifically for homeless individuals. It also covers the rehabilitation of structures intended to serve homeless individuals or those at risk of becoming homeless. The program funds the provision of direct services and case management for homeless individuals and those at risk of homelessness, along with essential services tailored to their needs. Additionally, HHSP funds the operation of emergency shelters and administrative facilities to ensure that homeless individuals have access to safe and supportive environments.
These initiatives aim to provide both immediate relief and long-term solutions, ensuring that individuals and families experiencing homelessness can access safe housing, supportive services, and resources necessary for recovery and stability?(Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs - b, 2024).
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
The Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program is a competitive grant initiative that allocates funds to private nonprofit organizations, cities, and counties across Texas. The goal of the ESG program is to assist individuals who are at risk of homelessness or currently homeless in quickly regaining stability in permanent housing. Funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA), the ESG program supports a variety of essential activities.
The program provides funding to engage homeless individuals and families living on the streets, improve the number and quality of emergency shelters available, help operate these shelters, and provide essential services to shelter residents. Additionally, the ESG program aims to rapidly re-house homeless individuals and families and prevent families and individuals from becoming homeless. Through these efforts, the ESG program works to create a more stable and supportive environment for those experiencing homelessness in Texas (Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless, 2019).
Texas Homeless Data Sharing Network (THDSN)
The THDSN is an innovative statewide initiative designed to enhance the coordination and effectiveness of services provided to homeless individuals across Texas. Established in response to the communication and data-sharing challenges highlighted by events like Hurricane Harvey, the THDSN integrates data from the Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) used by the state's eleven Continuums of Care (CoCs).
The primary goal of the THDSN is to connect these disparate data systems into a unified network, enabling service providers, local governments, faith communities, and other stakeholders to access and share real-time information about housing and resources. This integration facilitates better coordination of services, more efficient use of resources, and improved outcomes for individuals experiencing homelessness. The network's data can be analyzed in real-time, providing valuable insights for research and strategic planning that can inform policy decisions at the state level.
As of now, nine of the eleven CoCs participate in the THDSN, covering 237 of Texas' 254 counties. This represents approximately 93% of the state's counties, making it the largest statewide homelessness data integration effort in the United States. The THDSN helps ensure that data on homelessness is comprehensive and up-to-date, supporting efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring in Texas?(Texas Homeless Network, 2024).
House Bill (HB) 1925 – Homeless Camping Ban
Signed into law on June 15, 2021, HB 1925 enforces a statewide ban on camping in public areas. This legislation prohibits encampments on all public property, though it allows local governments to propose designated spaces on government-owned land for people experiencing homelessness. These proposals must be approved by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) before implementation.
Under HB 1925, individuals found camping outside of designated areas will be charged with a Class C misdemeanor, which carries a fine of up to $500. The law also prohibits cities from adopting policies that would prevent or discourage the enforcement of this public camping ban. While cities must comply with the minimum standards set by the law, they are also permitted to implement stricter measures if they choose.
The legislation outlines specific criteria that must be met for local governments to establish designated campsites. These criteria include access to healthcare, Medicaid, mental health services, indigent services, reasonably affordable public transportation, local law enforcement resources, and mental health coordination. The TDHCA is required to respond to applications for new campsites within 30 days.
Critics of the legislation, including the Texas Homeless Network, argue that the camping ban will not address the root causes of homelessness. Instead, they warn that it could exacerbate the issue by leading to fines and potential arrests for individuals who are unable to pay, thereby creating additional barriers to finding permanent housing. They also express concern that the requirement for the TDHCA to process campsite applications could place a financial strain on the already burdened department?(National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2021).
The approach Texas has taken to address homelessness over the last 20 years is showing progress.? Between 2007 and 2022, the state rate of homelessness has dropped from 17.1 per 10,000 to 8.1?(National Alliance to End Homelessness - a, 2023).
In Houston, the nation's fourth most populous city, has successfully transitioned more than 25,000 homeless individuals into apartments and houses. Remarkably, most of these individuals have remained housed after two years. According to the latest data from local officials, the number of homeless people in the Houston region has decreased by 63% since 2011.
A decade ago, homeless veterans, a group specifically tracked by the federal government, faced a daunting process: it took 720 days and required navigating 76 bureaucratic steps to move from the street into permanent housing with the assistance of social service counselors. Today, a more efficient system has reduced this waiting period to just 32 days?(Kimmelman & Tompkins, 2022).
While these are positive trends, homelessness in Texas saw a rise of more than 12% between 2022 and 2023, with the state's population of unsheltered homeless individuals increasing by 6.5%. The 2023 Point-in-Time Count showed growth across nearly all demographic groups, with homeless veterans and families with children increasing by 19% and 4.9%, respectively. There was also a rise in the number of Black and Hispanic individuals experiencing homelessness compared to the previous year (Fechter, 2024).
Low-income households in Texas are now facing considerably higher rents compared to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the expiration of pandemic-era federal rent relief funds and eviction moratoriums has left many without a safety net, contributing to the rise in homelessness, as noted by experts and advocates. Despite the progress made over the past few decades, these challenges highlight the need for continued and enhanced efforts to address homelessness comprehensively.
Florida
Florida, being the third most populous state in the U.S., faces a growing homelessness challenge, exacerbated by economic disparities, a tourism-driven economy, and natural disasters like hurricanes that often disrupt housing stability. In 2024, Florida reported around 31,362 people experiencing homelessness or 14 in every 10,000.? This was a 2% increase since 2023, but a 35% decrease since 2007?(de Sousa & Henry, 2024).
Like Texas, Florida’s policies to address homelessness rely on public/private sector partnerships to make more affordable housing available.? The Florida Council on Homelessness is a seventeen-member board that includes the heads of nine state agencies, four members appointed by the governor, and four representatives from statewide organizations and homeless advocacy groups.? Established in 2001, its mission is to develop and coordinate strategies to decrease the prevalence and duration of homelessness by recommending policies that will ultimately work towards ending homelessness in the state?(Florida Department of Children & Families, 2024).?
?Their recommendations for 2023 include?(Nazworth, 2023):
领英推荐
Recent legislation generally follows these guidelines that are more focused on making more affordable housing available through development incentives and reduction of regulatory barriers to developers.
Sadowski Act
While not a recent piece of legislation, the William E. Sadowski Act of 1992 continues to play a key role in making affordable housing more available in Florida.? It allocates a portion of the state's documentary stamp tax on real estate sales to fund two trusts. 70 % of the funds are directed to the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) fund, which provides local assistance for homeowners, including down payments, repairs, and rental aid. The remaining 30% is allocated to the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) fund, which offers incentives for developers to create more affordable housing units?(Delaney, 2022).
For its first decade, the Sadowski Affordable Housing Act was fully funded each year. However, starting in the early 2000s, the legislature began diverting money from the Sadowski Fund to other unrelated projects. Over two decades, these "Sadowski sweeps" redirected more than $2 billion, which could have leveraged six times that amount in housing investments, significantly undermining affordable housing efforts?(Katie, 2022).
Recently, Florida lawmakers passed legislation to stop these fund raids and dedicated the Sadowski Fund solely to affordable housing, with the trust fund now holding over $362 million. We discuss how these funds are used through the SHIP and SAIL funds below?(Katie, 2022).
The State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP)
The Florida State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program, managed by Florida Housing, is designed to provide financial assistance to local governments to encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing for homeownership and multifamily housing. ?As mentioned above, it was established by the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act of 1992, and funds are distributed to local governments based on population size.
The program aims to benefit families with very low, low, and moderate incomes. SHIP funds are allocated to all 67 counties in Florida and 55 cities that qualify for the Community Development Block Grant program. Each locality receives a minimum of $350,000. ?To participate, local governments must create a local housing assistance program, draft a housing assistance plan, and implement incentive strategies through ordinances and land development regulations. They are also required to form partnerships and pool resources to lower housing costs and ensure that housing expenses in the targeted areas do not exceed 30 percent of the area's median income unless otherwise approved by a lender.
These funds can be utilized for a variety of purposes, including emergency repairs, new construction, rehabilitation, down payment and closing cost assistance, impact fees, construction and gap financing, mortgage buy-downs, acquisition of property for affordable housing, matching federal housing grants, and homeownership counseling. Specific allocation requirements include spending at least 65 percent of the funds on homeownership activities, 75 percent on construction activities, reserving at least 30 percent for very low-income households (those earning up to 50 percent of the area median income or AMI), and another 30 percent for low-income households (earning up to 80 percent of AMI). The remaining funds can support households with incomes up to 140 percent of AMI. Additionally, no more than 10 percent of the funds can be used for administrative costs?(Florida Housing Finance Corporation, 2024).
State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program
The State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program, also funded by the Sadowski Trust Fund, is an initiative designed to stimulate the production of affordable multifamily housing. The primary goal of the SAIL program is to provide low-interest loans to developers to build or rehabilitate affordable rental housing, ensuring that such units are available for Florida's workforce, including families, elderly residents, and individuals with special needs.
Eligible applicants for SAIL funding include developers from for-profit, non-profit, and public entities. To qualify, projects must provide affordable rental units to very low, low, and moderate-income households, adhere to long-term affordability requirements, and meet specific construction and design standards to ensure quality and durability.
SAIL funds can be used for various stages of multifamily housing development, including land acquisition, construction and rehabilitation, site development and infrastructure improvements, and the adaptive reuse of existing buildings into affordable housing. This comprehensive approach ensures that developers have the necessary financial support to create and maintain affordable housing options for those in need.
In 2022, SAIL funded 4,707 units designated for low-income households. SAIL financing is frequently combined with other housing programs administered by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC), such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and mortgage revenue bonds. This combination bridges the gap between a development’s primary financing and its total costs, enabling developers to secure the full financing necessary for constructing or rehabilitating affordable housing units. These units serve families, elderly individuals, farmworkers, commercial fishing workers, persons experiencing homelessness, and individuals with special needs (OPPAGA, 2023).
The Live Local Act
Signed into law in March 2023, the Live Local Act is a comprehensive workforce housing initiative. Supported by the Florida Housing Coalition, this act aims to enhance the availability of affordable housing for Florida’s workforce, ensuring they can live in the communities they serve. ?This broad-ranging legislation is intended to incentivize the development of affordable housing across the state of Florida and appropriates $1.5 billion in state funding over 10.? The legislation reverses the historic "Sadowski sweeps" by providing historic levels of funding and introducing a variety of programs, incentives, and opportunities to reshape Florida’s housing strategy with a focus on accessibility.
The act includes $811 million in funding for affordable housing programs including up to $150 million in recurring funds for the SAIL program, $109 million in non-recurring funds for the SAIL program, and $252 million in non-recurring funds for the SHIP program.? It also includes tax incentives, and exemptions to support the development of affordable housing. Additionally, the act mandates that local governments facilitate affordable housing in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas and encourages the use of publicly owned land for affordable housing projects.
A notable aspect of the Live Local Act is its zoning preemption framework, which requires local governments to authorize multifamily and mixed-use residential developments in commercial zones if a significant portion of the units are affordable for at least 30 years. This measure is intended to streamline the approval process and promote the construction of affordable housing units across various regions.
Moreover, the act includes provisions for increased funding allocations to support ongoing housing projects facing rising construction costs, such as the Construction Housing Inflation Response Program. It also broadens the scope of affordable housing projects that qualify for tax exemptions, aiming to make the development of affordable housing more viable for developers?(Barshel & Alexander, 2023).
In addition to these funding programs, the state of Florida has initiated some legislation aimed at addressing the needs of low-income renters, homeless youth, and unsheltered persons.
Fees in Lieu of Security Deposits
Fees in Lieu of Security Deposits authorizes landlords to offer tenants the option to pay a fee instead of a security deposit. The bill outlines requirements for specific notices, the filing of insurance claims, payment options for the fee, and written agreements between the landlord and tenant regarding this fee. It prohibits landlords from accepting certain payments and specifies that landlords have exclusive discretion in deciding whether to offer this option to tenants. Additionally, the bill prohibits landlords from approving or denying a tenancy application based on the prospective tenant's choice to pay the fee instead of a security deposit (Florida House of Representatives, 2023).
Supporters, including corporate lobbying interests, argue that this legislation will facilitate easier apartment rentals by removing the requirement for a substantial upfront payment. Critics, however, label the legislation as "predatory." They highlight the absence of caps on the fees landlords can charge under this alternative security deposit arrangement, meaning fees could range from $25 to $200 per month or more. The bill has also faced opposition from social advocacy groups and labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union, which represents many low-wage workers?(Schueler, 2023).
The “Homeless Youth” Bill
The Florida Homeless Youth bill, signed into law in April 2022, seeks to remove barriers to accessing medical and other forms of care for homeless youth. It requires local school districts to provide certified homeless youth with a card that details the benefits they qualify for. The bill also extends the fee waiver exemption for birth records to include certified homeless youth and foster youth who have aged out of the child welfare system, allowing them to consent to certain types of care and qualify for fee exemptions (Blankley, 2022).
In addition to obtaining documents at no cost, homeless youth are eligible for financial assistance for postsecondary education and support in acquiring motor vehicle insurance and driver licenses, among other provisions.
The bill also requires the creation of liaison positions in postsecondary institutions, such as state-run universities and colleges, to assist homeless students with tuition waiver issues. Previously, students had to manage the required paperwork and meetings independently. The bill aligns tuition policies with federal guidelines by presuming students to be homeless for every year they attend the same institution, unless stated otherwise or if conflicting information is provided, thus eliminating the need for annual re-certification of their homeless status (Fraieli, 2022).
However, these services require the youth to be certified as homeless, defined as individuals aged 16 or older who are not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian, including runaways or those abandoned by their parents. Certification must be done by a school district's liaison for homeless children and youths, the director or designee of a HUD-funded emergency shelter program, the director or designee of a Health and Human Services-funded runaway or homeless youth program, or a continuum of care lead agency. The definition of unaccompanied homeless youth applies to those aged 16 and 17, as they age out at 18?(The Florida Senate, 2024).
Unauthorized Public Camping and Public Sleeping bill
The Unauthorized Public Camping and Public Sleeping bill aims to maintain public safety and cleanliness by prohibiting makeshift encampments in public spaces such as city streets, sidewalks, and parks. Reflecting concerns from other cities about the visibility of homelessness, drugs, and crime, the law introduces mechanisms for local compliance, increases funding for homeless shelters and mental health services, and mandates that shelter residents follow no-drug policies and engage in workforce programs.
The bill specifically prohibits camping and sleeping on public property, requiring homeless individuals to be relocated to temporary shelters offering mental health and substance abuse services. It also includes provisions for temporary campsites with sanitation and health services when local shelters are full (Neely, 2024).
Supporters of Florida's recent homeless camping ban believe that the legislation will reduce the presence of homeless individuals on public property and in parks, which they see as a nuisance. They also contend that having homeless individuals in designated areas will streamline the provision of local services, making it easier to support those in need.
Conversely, opponents argue that the bill is primarily an attempt to remove homeless individuals from public view without addressing the underlying causes of homelessness. They assert that the legislation merely displaces the problem rather than solving it, as it fails to offer any long-term solutions or exit strategies for those experiencing homelessness. This, they believe, leaves the root issues unaddressed and does not provide sustainable support for unhoused individuals?(Farrington, 2024).
Over the past 10 years, Florida was seeing a steady decline of homelessness in the state, but recently it has seen a troubling reversal with PIT estimates now higher than they were in 2018 (Division of Public Statistics and Performance Management, 2024).? It is too early to tell if the recent increase is a new trend or just a short-term deviation in a general trend downward.
?
New York
New York, the fourth most populous state in the U.S., has a significant and growing homelessness crisis, particularly in New York City, which accounts for the majority of the state's homeless population. At the end of 2024, New York had over 158,000 individuals experiencing homelessness, with the majority residing in shelters.? This represents a 53% increase since 2023 and a 152% increase since 2007?(de Sousa & Henry, 2024).
High housing costs, economic inequality, and a large population density contribute to the state’s homelessness challenges.? New York has the second-highest homeless population in the U.S. When examining the rates of homelessness per 10,000 residents, however, New York stands out with 52 individuals experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people, compared to California's 46, Florida’s 14, and Texas’ 9?(deSousa, et al., 2023). This statistic highlights New York’s significant challenge in addressing homelessness despite its numerous initiatives. The state’s efforts reflect a growing recognition of the need for comprehensive and integrated approaches to homelessness and mental health. Several progressive and, at times, controversial initiatives have been enacted or implemented.
The Housing Our Neighbors with Dignity Act (HONDA)
The Housing Our Neighbors with Dignity Act (HONDA), enacted in New York in 2021, aims to address the housing crisis by converting underutilized hotels and commercial properties into permanent, affordable housing. This law represents a creative use of existing infrastructure to address the urgent need for housing in a state with high real estate costs and limited available land.? The law empowers the Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC) to finance these conversions, which are managed by nonprofit organizations. These units are to be permanently affordable, with a focus on supporting homeless individuals and families, providing them with not just housing but also necessary amenities like kitchens and bathrooms. The affordability standards set by HONDA for the transformed properties stipulate that the average income of the residents in the new housing must not exceed 50% of the AMI. Additionally, the maximum income eligibility for residents when signing a lease is limited to 80% of the AMI.? The program also enforces rent stabilization in municipalities with relevant laws and mandates prevailing wages for building service employees in New York City?(Altidor, 2021).
New York has also prioritized the expansion of supportive housing. The FY 2025 Budget allocates significant funds to expand the state’s housing supply, including a $500 million investment to build up to 15,000 homes on state land. Additionally, the budget creates incentives for affordable housing and grants stronger powers to the Pro-Housing Communities program. This expansion is critical as supportive housing combines affordable housing with services that help people who face the most complex challenges to live with stability, autonomy, and dignity?(Governor Kathy Hochul, 2024).
Safe Options Support Teams
Another key initiative is the Safe Options Support (SOS) Teams, which focus on addressing street homelessness. These teams consist of trained mental health practitioners who work alongside emergency shelters, outreach providers, and permanent housing providers to transition individuals living on the streets into stable housing. By reducing police intervention in mental health emergencies, the SOS Teams aim to provide more humane and effective responses to homelessness and mental health crises?(Geringer-Sameth, 2022).
The SOS initiative, launched in April 2022, addresses street homelessness through a comprehensive, humane approach that decreases reliance on police interventions in mental health crises. This program is a collaborative effort involving Coordinated Behavioral Care (CBC), the New York State Office of Mental Health, and various not-for-profit organizations dedicated to aiding those experiencing homelessness. CBC serves as the SOS Hub, managing referrals, data, quality assurance, training, and community learning aspects of the initiative?(Granek, Ramos, & Queliz, 2024).
SOS Teams are operational seven days a week through the CBC Independent Practice Association (IPA) network, which includes organizations like ACMH, Argus, Bronx Works, and Services for the Underserved. The teams include licensed clinicians, nurses, care managers, and peers with lived experience, focusing on a person-centered approach to transition individuals from the streets into stable housing. The SOS model emphasizes the importance of building trust and rapport through repeated, compassionate engagements, especially in key areas like train stations where many homeless individuals tend to gather?(Mattel, Ramos, & Granek, 2023).
The outreach process is patient and persistent, tailored to meet the immediate needs of the homeless, such as providing food, water, and essential hygiene supplies, thereby laying the groundwork for more substantial assistance. SOS's approach is notably trauma-informed, ensuring that interactions are sensitive and geared towards minimizing re-traumatization.
As individuals become ready to transition, SOS facilitates access to emergency housing and addresses both mental and physical health concerns. This process includes securing essential documents like ID cards and birth certificates, which are crucial for housing applications, and coordinating healthcare appointments. SOS also works to streamline access to shelters and alternative housing options like Safe Havens and mental health shelters, overcoming traditional barriers faced in conventional shelters.
The program's success hinges on its multifaceted strategy that not only places individuals in housing but also supports them through the transition with a Critical Time Intervention (CTI) model. This model is adaptable in-service intensity, ensuring that each individual's needs are met during critical transitions up to nine months post-housing placement. Additionally, SOS extends its support beyond housing by assisting members in obtaining benefits like Food Stamps and SSI, which are vital for daily living.
Community integration is a pivotal component of the SOS strategy, focusing on helping individuals build social connections and engage in community activities to establish a sense of belonging and support sustained well-being. This holistic approach ensures that individuals are not only housed but are also supported in a way that promotes long-term stability and integration into society, thereby preventing a return to homelessness.
Through its comprehensive service model, SOS not only addresses the immediate housing needs of New York’s homeless population but also fosters a supportive environment that nurtures long-term recovery and stability, proving crucial in the broader fight against homelessness.
Homeless Housing and Assistance Program (HHAP)
The Homeless Housing and Assistance Program (HHAP), established in 1983, provides capital grants and loans to various entities in New York State. These include non-profit corporations, charitable organizations, municipalities, and public corporations to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate housing for homeless individuals who cannot secure adequate housing without assistance. Eligible projects serve families, single persons, and youth with special needs such as mental illness, domestic violence survivors, veterans, and those living with HIV/AIDS. HHAP supports emergency shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing.
Administered by the Homeless Housing and Assistance Corporation (HHAC), a public benefit corporation created in 1990 under the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) and staffed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), HHAP pioneered substantial financial support nationwide for homeless housing development. It was the first program emphasizing that housing solutions require more than physical structures. New York led in developing supportive housing for various vulnerable groups, including HIV/AIDS patients, mentally ill individuals, and formerly incarcerated persons.
HHAP is tailored to local community needs, funding a wide array of housing types such as emergency facilities for domestic violence survivors, programs for homeless youth, transitional housing for foster care graduates, recovery programs, and supportive housing for veterans and those with complex needs. It often serves as the primary state resource for such projects, either independently or in collaboration with federal, local, or private funding sources?(Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, 2024).
Funds are allocated through a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, targeting non-profits with expertise in housing development or social services, occasionally including municipalities. HHAP fosters mixed-use housing projects combining supportive and affordable housing, adaptable to community and population needs.
Since its establishment, the Homeless Housing and Assistance Program (HHAP) in New York State has allocated $1.73 billion for the development of homeless housing. This funding has supported the acquisition of properties, demolition, site preparation, rehabilitation, new construction, equipment, architectural fees, and other professional services essential for housing development. Over this period, HHAP has facilitated the creation of 28,852 units of homeless housing across the state?(Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, 2023).
Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative (ESSHI)
The Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative (ESSHI) is a New York State program aimed at creating or preserving 6,000 supportive housing units across the state, with a focus on individuals and families experiencing homelessness and facing disabling conditions or other life challenges. The initiative began in 2016 with annual Request for Proposals (RFPs) to achieve this five-year goal, allocating rental subsidies and supportive services to ensure long-term stable housing?(NYU Furman Center, 2024).
Through these annual RFPs, ESSHI provides up to $25,000 per unit annually for services and operating costs, supporting permanent supportive housing developed with external capital funding. The program targets homeless families, individuals, and young adults with unmet housing needs and disabling conditions. Eligible uses of funds include rental assistance, non-medical support services, and operational expenses necessary to deliver services on-site.
New York State leverages the HUD Continuum of Care model to maximize impact, engaging localities and nonprofit providers in data-driven strategies. This approach focuses on vulnerable populations like victims of domestic violence, homeless youth, and formerly incarcerated individuals. The state's broader aim is to develop 20,000 supportive housing units over 15 years, with annual RFPs contributing to the ongoing development of 1,400 units tailored to meet the housing and service needs of those experiencing homelessness with special needs or challenges?(New York State Office of Mental Health, 2023).
Since its launch until April 26, 2023, the ESSHI program has overseen 286 projects and awarded 8,122 units across all State agencies. Currently, the Office holds contracts for 87 projects, totaling 3,021 units. Among these, 66 projects (2,087 units) are active and providing supportive housing, while the remaining 21 projects are in various stages of construction and preparation to become active?(DiNapoli, 2023).
NY/NY Agreements
There have been three City-State agreements known as the "New York/New York Agreements" aimed at creating permanent supportive housing. These agreements were collaborative initiatives between the City and State aimed at bolstering the availability of supportive housing in New York City. These agreements encompassed three distinct phases?(Walczyk, Branca, & Berhaupt, 2014):
Combined, these NY/NY agreements generated over 14,000 new supportive housing units. And they have been proven successful in reducing reliance on other public services, yielding significant cost savings. A 2014 report by the City’s health department and Mental Hygiene (DOHMA) indicated that the NY/NY III Agreement notably decreased shelter, hospital, psychiatric center, and incarceration utilization, resulting in an average annual public savings of $10,100 per unit. Earlier studies have similarly documented substantial cost savings from previous NY/NY Agreements (Seligson, 2014).? A follow-up review of the dates spanning 2007-2017 assessed the program’s impact on housing and health outcomes.? It found that placement in NY/NY III housing was associated with improved physical and mental health, enhanced housing stability, and significant per-person cost savings?(Gouse, Walters, Miller-Archie, Singh, & Lim, 2023).
Mental Hygiene Law
New York City has taken significant steps to address the intersection of mental health and homelessness. The city's revamped mental health strategy adopts a public health approach, emphasizing care for those with the greatest need and deepest inequities. The strategy balances investments in prevention and treatment while addressing social determinants of health. It fosters collaboration across various sectors through advocacy, policy initiatives, and strategic stakeholder engagement, aiming to enhance mental health outcomes citywide.
However, some of these initiatives have sparked debate. For instance, New York City has implemented a controversial policy of involuntary hospitalization for individuals deemed unable to care for themselves due to severe mental health issues. While this policy is intended to address immediate safety concerns, it has raised significant concerns about civil liberties and the effectiveness of involuntary treatment. Critics argue that involuntary hospitalization can be traumatizing and counterproductive, potentially deterring individuals from seeking help voluntarily in the future. Advocates, however, insist that such measures are necessary to protect individuals and the community when severe mental health crises are present?(Linton, 2022).
New York is taking a multifaceted approach to address the complex intertwined issues of homelessness and mental health through a combination of housing initiatives, mental health support, and systemic reforms. But given the state’s increase in homelessness, its policies aren’t resulting in a reduction in homelessness.
From 2005 to 2010, the homelessness estimates in New York remained relatively stable, with numbers hovering around 60,000 to 70,000. However, from 2010 to 2014, there was a noticeable increase in homelessness estimates, peaking at nearly 90,000. The estimates stabilized again between 2015 and 2021, maintaining a range between 90,000 and 95,000. A significant spike occurred in the most recent years, with the estimate sharply rising to over 103,000 in 2023 and then 158,000 in 2024.
The one metric that is going in the right direction is the number of unsheltered homeless.? The number of homeless in New York that were unsheltered was 8.5%.? By 2023, that rate fell to 4.85%?(PD&R, 2023).
Several factors contribute to the homelessness crisis in New York State. The high cost of living, particularly in New York City, is a major factor, with housing affordability posing a significant challenge as rents have increased faster than wages for many workers, pushing low-income residents into homelessness. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing vulnerabilities, leading to job losses and economic instability. Although emergency measures such as eviction moratoriums provided temporary relief, their expiration has led to increased evictions and homelessness.
Mental health issues and substance abuse also play a significant role, with a strong correlation between these factors and homelessness. The lack of adequate mental health services and support for those with substance abuse problems contributes to the growing numbers. Despite various policies implemented by New York State and New York City, including the development of affordable housing units, shelter expansions, and supportive housing programs, these measures have struggled to keep pace with the growing demand. Limited availability of affordable housing units and bureaucratic hurdles in housing development projects further hinder efforts to provide adequate housing for the homeless population.
Interestingly enough, New York City stands alone as the only major city in the United States to offer a legal "right to shelter." This mandate ensures that all individuals and families have access to emergency shelter when needed. Unique to New York City, it is one of the most comprehensive right-to-shelter policies in the country. When someone requests a bed by a specified time, they are guaranteed a place to sleep according to the law, regardless of residency or income. This means that even if someone comes from another city, state, country, or continent and has no place to stay, New York must shelter and feed them promptly in a facility that meets certain court-set standards.
The history of the right to shelter in New York City began with a series of legal actions and policy decisions in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The landmark case Callahan v. Carey in 1979 was a critical turning point. Robert Callahan, a homeless man, filed a class-action lawsuit against the City and State of New York, arguing that homeless individuals were entitled to shelter under the New York State Constitution. The plaintiffs cited Article XVII, Section 1, which mandates that the state provides aid, care, and support for the needy.
The Callahan case resulted in a consent decree in 1981, which legally obligated New York City to provide shelter to all homeless men. This decree was later expanded to include homeless women and families. The agreement stipulated that the city must offer shelter that meets certain minimum standards, including safety, sanitation, and adequate space.
While the right to shelter ensures that no one is left without a roof over their head, it is not without challenges. The demand for shelter often exceeds the available capacity, leading to overcrowded conditions and the need for temporary accommodation such as hotel rooms. There have been ongoing concerns about the quality and safety of some shelter facilities, with reports of substandard conditions, violence, and lack of adequate services. Critics argue that while the right to shelter addresses the immediate need for housing, it does not tackle the root causes of homelessness, such as lack of affordable housing, unemployment, and inadequate social services?(Porto, 2023).
?
IV. Discussion (Comparative Analysis of State Homeless Policies)
Homelessness is a critical social and public health issue in the United States, affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals and families. Each state adopts unique approaches to address this problem, shaped by their social, economic, and political contexts. The results of these policies are confounded by several other variables including but not limited to geographic and topology differences, housing regulations, and zoning laws. California, Texas, Florida, and New York have been working to reduce homelessness for decades.? Each has enacted dozens of laws and regulations and spent billions of dollars to address the crisis.? But from the analysis it is clear, over the past 10-15 years homelessness is rising in California and New York and has decreased in Texas and Florida?(PD&R, 2023).
Across all four states, a primary driver of homelessness is the shortage of affordable housing. High housing costs, particularly in urban areas, have outpaced wage growth, making it difficult for low-income individuals and families to secure stable housing. ?Homelessness rates are strongly correlated with the cost-of-living index, housing costs, transportation costs, grocery costs, and the cigarette excise tax rate?(Heston, 2023).? One study found the homelessness rate in a community begins to increase sharply when median rental costs exceed 30% of median income. This finding statistically links homelessness with the U.S. government's definition of a housing cost burden?(Gylnn, Byrne, & Culhane, 2021).? Economic factors such as unemployment, underemployment, and low wages significantly contribute to homelessness, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these issues, leading to increased evictions and financial instability.
Recently the cost of buying and preparing land for construction has gone up significantly compared to the price of housing units over the past few decades. This is partly because there's less undeveloped land available in some areas, which makes the land more expensive. Even in these areas, prices could lead to more housing being built if not for rules that limit how much can be built. Stricter land use rules add to these rising costs by causing long delays in getting permits and slowing down new construction. Regulations like single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and parking requirements also affect how much land can be developed and how many housing units can be built.
Zoning regulations often limit the amount of land available for residential development within a municipality and set rules for the density and quality of the housing that can be built. Growth controls, moratoriums, exaction fees on new developments, and lengthy approval processes tend to discourage the construction of new housing and influence the type of housing that is supplied to the local market. While these regulations may not completely prevent the construction of basic-quality housing, they do hinder production and likely restrict supply.
While there isn't official government data on how much regulation costs for housing construction or renovation, private groups have studied it. A 2021 study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found that government regulations at the state, local, and federal levels made up 23.8% of the average sales price of a new single-family home in 2021. In dollar terms, the average regulatory cost was $93,870 in 2021, up from $84,671 in 2016 and $65,224 in 2011 (Emrath, 2021).
These various forms of housing market regulation impact housing costs by increasing production expenses, limiting housing supply, and boosting demand. All three factors eventually contribute to higher housing prices in an area. Additionally, existing research shows that these regulations have the most significant effects on the supply and cost of housing for low- and moderate-income families?(Ellen & O'Flaherty, 2010).
California and New York tend to have higher regulations and stricter zoning laws, this pushes up housing costs and limits the supply of new units.? For example, in 2022, Texas approved permits for 265,793 homes, while California approved only 119,667, despite having about 9 million more residents. This difference is largely due to the extensive red tape in California, where developers face numerous hurdles. The California Environmental Quality Act, for example, allows opponents to block projects in court for years, often leading to their cancellation. In contrast, Texas has fewer building regulations. For example, land in unincorporated counties isn't subject to zoning laws. This regulatory flexibility enabled the creation of Community First! Village in 2015, a neighborhood with over 350 tiny homes for homeless residents just outside Austin's city limits?(Kendall, 2023).
The rising cost of housing is causing millions of households to be priced out of homeownership, burdened by housing expenses, or left without shelter. People of color are disproportionately affected by this crisis. This highlights the urgent need for policies to address the national housing shortage, which is the main cause of the affordability crisis. Moreover, there's a growing need for public and private investments to revitalize underserved communities of color, adapt housing to the increasing risks of climate change, and provide more options for older adults to age safely in their communities?(Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University - a, 2024).
California has the largest homeless population in the United States, with over 180,000 homeless individuals in 2023. The state has implemented several policies focusing on both immediate relief and long-term solutions. The Homekey program converts hotels and motels into permanent housing for the homeless, while the CARE Court system mandates treatment for those with severe mental illnesses. Despite these efforts, California faces significant challenges due to high housing costs and a shortage of affordable housing. The state’s focus on mental health and substance abuse treatment is commendable but needs better integration with housing solutions to be more effective.
Texas adopts a local-focused approach, prioritizing rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing. Programs like the Texas Homeless Network and the Healthy Community Collaboratives (HCC) emphasize quick transitions from homelessness to stable housing. Texas has maintained one of the lowest rates of homelessness per capita, partly due to its lower housing costs and collaborative efforts between public and private sectors. However, the criminalization of homelessness in some cities can lead to cyclical incarceration without addressing root causes.
Florida's policies focus on preventive and supportive measures, with significant emphasis on public/private sector partnerships to develop affordable housing. The Challenge Grant program and the Sadowski Act are notable initiatives. Florida has seen success in reducing veteran homelessness and leveraging federal grants for support services. However, natural disasters and affordable housing shortages continue to pose challenges.
New York, particularly New York City, stands out with its legal "right to shelter," ensuring that all individuals and families have access to emergency shelter. This policy has helped reduce unsheltered homelessness but also strains the shelter system. New York has invested heavily in supportive housing and services for the homeless, with initiatives like the Safe Options Support (SOS) Teams focusing on mental health and street homelessness. Despite these efforts, high housing costs and economic inequality contribute to the state’s growing homelessness crisis.
The availability of affordable housing is a critical factor. States with robust programs to develop and maintain affordable housing, like Florida’s Sadowski Act and California’s Homekey program, tend to have better outcomes. Integrating mental health and substance abuse treatment with housing solutions, as seen in Texas’s Healthy Community Collaboratives and New York’s Safe Options Support Teams, leads to significant improvements. Economic policies that enhance job opportunities and provide financial assistance help prevent homelessness. Legal protections, such as New York’s "right to shelter," ensure immediate relief for homeless individuals but require substantial resources and effective management to avoid overcrowded and substandard conditions. Effective coordination between state and local governments, as well as partnerships with nonprofit organizations, is essential for successful implementation. Texas’s coordinated efforts through the Texas Homeless Network and Florida’s collaborative strategies exemplify this.
States should prioritize the development of affordable housing through incentives for developers, streamlined approval processes, and the use of public land for housing projects. Programs like California’s Homekey and Florida’s Sadowski Act provide useful models. Integrating mental health and substance abuse treatment with housing programs can provide comprehensive support for homeless individuals, addressing the root causes of homelessness. Texas’s Healthy Community Collaboratives and New York’s Safe Options Support Teams are effective models. Programs that quickly transition individuals from shelters to permanent housing can reduce the length of time people experience homelessness and improve stability. Texas’s rapid re-housing initiatives offer a successful approach. States can benefit from integrated data systems that facilitate coordination between service providers and government agencies, ensuring that resources are effectively allocated. Texas’s Homeless Data Sharing Network (THDSN) is an innovative model. Policies aimed at increasing wages, providing job training, and offering financial assistance can help prevent homelessness by improving economic stability for vulnerable populations. Efforts to enhance job opportunities and provide financial support are crucial.
Legal frameworks that ensure immediate shelter, like New York’s "right to shelter," provide critical relief but require effective management to avoid overcrowding and substandard conditions. Such policies should be coupled with efforts to address long-term housing solutions. Leveraging public/private partnerships to develop affordable housing and support services can enhance the effectiveness of homelessness policies. Florida’s approach offers valuable insights into how such collaborations can be structured. Preventive measures, such as rental assistance and eviction prevention programs, can help reduce the inflow of individuals into homelessness. Programs that focus on keeping people housed before they become homeless are essential.
In their book “Homelessness is a Housing Problem”, Gregg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern propose a three-pronged approach to tackle homelessness effectively. Firstly, they stress the importance of changing public perception to recognize that homelessness is fundamentally a housing issue, rather than attributing it to personal failings or individual circumstances. Secondly, they advocate for providing sufficient resources to develop and maintain affordable housing, ensuring that everyone has access to stable living conditions. Lastly, they recommend adopting a systems approach, which involves coordinated efforts across various sectors, such as housing, healthcare, and social services, to address the root causes and interconnected factors contributing to homelessness?(Colburn & Aldern, 2022).? Based on the analysis performed in this literature review the recommended systematic approach we suggest includes:
California, Texas, Florida, and New York each offer valuable lessons in addressing homelessness through their distinct policies and approaches. Common themes such as affordable housing shortages, economic instability, and the need for integrated support services underscore the complexity of the issue. By synthesizing successful strategies and making informed policy recommendations, other states can develop more effective and equitable approaches to reducing homelessness. More research should be done on the cost and development barriers caused by over regulation and zoning laws.? Official government figures and cost benefit analysis would help identify which regulations could be reduced to enable the development of more affordable housing.? Addressing the root causes, enhancing coordination, and investing in comprehensive solutions are key to making meaningful progress in the fight against homelessness.
?
V. Conclusion
Affordable, quality housing is not just a basic need; it is the bedrock of a healthy, thriving community. When families have access to safe, stable homes, they are shielded from environmental hazards and can support one another effectively, fostering a sense of security and wellbeing. However, the reality is starkly different for many. Substandard housing exposes residents to grave dangers like radon, lead, and asbestos, leading to increased risks of injuries and respiratory issues. This is especially devastating for children, who face heightened risks of neurological impairments and developmental delays from such toxic exposures.
Housing is not just a problem confined to states like California, Texas, Florida, and New York; it is a national issue that affects communities across the United States. While these states often receive attention due to their large populations and high housing costs, the reality is that many regions, from urban centers to rural areas, face significant housing challenges. Rising housing costs, limited affordable housing options, and increasing rates of homelessness are concerns that transcend state lines?(Horowitz, Hatchett, & Staveski, 2023). The shortage of affordable housing is a pressing issue in many cities and towns, exacerbating economic disparities and straining social services nationwide. To effectively address the housing crisis, it requires a concerted effort at the national level, with policies and resources aimed at increasing housing affordability and availability for all Americans, regardless of where they live.
The impact of chronic homelessness is profound and far-reaching. People experiencing homelessness often face barriers to healthcare, resulting in higher rates of hospitalizations for physical illnesses, mental health conditions, and substance abuse compared to those with stable housing (American Psychological Association, 2011).? Homelessness results in higher rates of injuries, cancer, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, mental health disorders, and even death. Children and adolescents without stable housing suffer academically, jeopardizing their future opportunities and overall wellbeing. The chronic stress and instability associated with homelessness can leave lasting scars, impeding their ability to break free from the cycle of poverty (Gibson, 2024).
Housing costs are typically the largest expense for families, and when these costs are exorbitantly high, they force heart-wrenching trade-offs. Families may have to sacrifice nutrition, healthcare, transportation, and education—all vital components of a healthy life. Severe financial strain can drive families into poverty, leading to developmental and behavioral issues in children and hastening cognitive and physical decline in adults.
Low-income families and minority communities bear the brunt of this crisis, disproportionately affected by the lack of affordable, quality housing. This is not just an economic issue but a profound moral failing. We must address this crisis with urgency and compassion, recognizing that the health and stability of our communities depend on it. It is a matter of human dignity and societal responsibility to ensure that housing is a right, not a privilege. The time to act is now—our future depends on it.
Home serves as a crucial refuge, shielding individuals from the demands of work, the pressures of education, and external uncertainties. It is a place where true identities are embraced, and personal development occurs. From childhood, marked by imagination and play, to adolescence, characterized by self-discovery, the home is foundational to personal growth.
As Matthew Desmond said in his book “Evicted”, the concept of "home" transcends mere shelter, encompassing warmth, safety, and family. This idea is reflected in various languages and cultures: in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, "home" symbolized "mother," and in Chinese, "jia" denotes both family and home. The term's etymology, deriving from the Old English "scield" (shield) and "truma" (stronghold), evokes a protective environment where families gather, traditions are established, and aspirations are nurtured?(Desmond, 2016).
Within the home, meals are shared, habits are formed, and dreams are expressed. It serves as the foundation of civic life, teaching individuals to contribute to their communities, participate in local governance, and support their neighbors. Active citizenship is fostered when individuals take ownership of their streets, parks, and schools, dedicating themselves to communal improvement and democratic engagement.
However, the stability of homes is increasingly precarious. Many families allocate more than half of their income to rent, leaving insufficient resources for essentials such as food and clothing. Stable housing is not merely a physical structure; it is critical for children's stability, enabling enduring friendships, role models, and educational opportunities. It allows families to reclaim time and energy otherwise spent on securing shelter and navigating the challenges of rent payments and evictions.
Every family deserves a safe and affordable home to call their own.
We can and must do better.
VI. References
?
Accounting Administrator at Zafe House Refuge home
1 周I am honor to read all your knowledge, it would be an honor be able to share some ideas as well.... let me know if you have time to read them. [email protected]. 909 789-2399
Consultant @ Kenny Consulting, LLC | Public Policy, Strategic Planning, Training
1 个月Very helpful. Unhoused persons and families is heartbreaking and this paper draws attention to this tragedy. Clearly action is needed but the ‘less than’ bias (including implicit) must be acknowledged and addressed to be able to make a difference. Thank you for the excellent work to highlight this issue.
Housing and Homeless Subject Matter Expert
1 个月I'm also eager to see how many states capture the number of homeless individuals that are housed, then abandoned their units due to reoccuring substance abuse, lease violations, damage to property and more. Homelessness is an issue that will go unresolved until the end of time. What should be the priority is improving our processes to help those who need and want to be housed. Improving our qrap around services. Better pay for advocacy groups and case workers, better incentive for landlords
Student at Purdue University Global/ Looking for position in Health and Wellness/ Graduating Summer of 2023
1 个月https://1drv.ms/b/c/b674a9884accd6d0/EVePpKgnCnVEoIbiYKiLHzIBRtXVcY0cIQkhDL1817NV7Q
Expert in analytics and data visualization | Helping turn data into actionable insights
1 个月Thanks for such a clear and well-referenced article. It’s a helpful resource on this topic.