Housing for All?

By Debbie Sullivan Reslock, AICP

Last fall, the Los Angeles city council declared a shelter crisis due to a 12 percent increase in homelessness in two years. The mayors of Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have each declared a state of emergency, and Hawaii Gov. David Ige in October enacted emergency measures across the whole state, which has the highest per capita rate of homelessness in the U.S.

Yet at the same time, many cities searching for shelter space have made it illegal to sleep, sit, or lie down in public, an action often referred to as criminalizing homelessness. A survey released in 2014 by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty assessed the municipal codes of 187 cities and found bans on camping had increased 60 percent with a 43 percent increase for sitting or lying down in particular public places.

But those communities that don't have enough beds may need to revisit their response systems as the Department of Justice in August filed a statement of interest stating that people can't be arrested for sleeping outside if there are no other alternatives. And in September, the NLCHP announced that applications for HUD's $1.9 billion grant program for federal homelessness funding will now include a question on how a community is reducing the criminalization of homelessness.

The solutions to resolve homelessness require both national and local efforts. According to the 2015 Department of Housing and Urban Development Point-in-Time count, there were 391,440 homeless people in shelters and 173,268 sleeping outdoors, in cars, or in other spaces not meant for habitation. Most of those people were individuals, but more than 206,000 of them belonged to the some 64,000 homeless families documented by the count.

Communities are getting closer to finding ways to get the homeless into homes, but even though housing may be part of the solution, a severe shortage coupled with continually rising rents is the leading cause of homelessness, according to Elayne Weiss, policy analyst with the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

And the gap between the number of available rental homes and what's affordable to the extremely low-income (ELI) renter, those with incomes at or below 30 percent of area median income, is estimated at 7.1 million units. "We're in a rental crisis," Weiss says, explaining that not only are more people renting but fewer are moving on to become home owners.

As an effect of supply and demand, landlords in the private market that contract with HUD through its Section 8 program often choose not to renew their contracts if they're in a neighborhood of rising rents, says Weiss. For every affordable apartment created each year, two are lost because private landlords leave the arena or because of the properties' deterioration, according to the National Housing Trust.

As rents have risen nationally for 23 straight quarters, people who are severely cost burdened could be just one illness or other unexpected cost away from being on the streets, according to Weiss.

And when looking at wages and housing, she points out that the NLIHC's 2015 Out of Reach report found that there is no state in the U.S. where a minimum-wage worker working a 40-hour week can afford a one-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent. In more than half the states, renters would have to work 61 to 79 hours a week; 10 states require an 80-hour work week or more to make the rent.

"Federal resources dry up, the HUD budget shrinks because of spending caps, and programs are slashed," Weiss says, describing some of the challenges. "We lost 100,000 housing vouchers due to sequestration so the impact is huge for those with low or extremely low incomes."

One positive is that the National Housing Trust Fund is now being funded and will begin to distribute an estimated $200 million in 2016, according to Weiss. The NHTF was created in 2008, but its financing from set-aside funds of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were put on hold that same year due to the banking crisis. "The Trust Fund is so important because the program is aimed at producing more rental units specifically for ELI households. And developers will be able to couple tax credits with NHTF dollars to build units that are truly affordable to ELI families," Weiss says.

Camp Quixote II, a tent city, was temporarily set up in 2007 on the grounds of Olympia Unitarian Universalist Church and other churches in Olympia, Washington, after being removed from a vacant city lot. It has evolved into a permanent community, Quixote Village.

Housing ready versus housing first

The philosophy of housing the homeless has also been changing. The belief used to be that mental illness or addiction problems had to be treated and overcome before housing stability could be achieved. But those housing-ready programs were criticized because they seemed to make the homeless earn their housing. The many who couldn't comply remained in shelters or out on the streets.

Housing first, on the other hand, is a no-strings-attached approach based on the concept that it's much easier for the homeless to work on serious life problems when they know where they'll be sleeping at night. The focus is getting people into permanent supportive housing as soon as possible. Services are then made available, but they're not a condition to tenancy. And according to the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, results have shown high rates of housing retention, reduced time in shelters or on the street, and an expansion of housing choices, something often lacking in the lives of homeless people.

Both the Colorado Coalition's Housing First program, which reports a retention rate of 96 percent, and Utah, which has just a 13 percent return to homeless rate, have seen successes with this approach.

The 1811 Eastlake project in Seattle, opened in 2005, is an early example of housing first, where 75 formerly homeless men and women live with chronic alcohol addiction. This group is typically the highest user of a community's expensive crisis services, including emergency rooms, detox centers, and jails. At Eastlake, the majority of residents are male, over 45, have at least 15 years of both addiction and homelessness behind them, and on average have tried and failed 16 times to quit drinking.

But getting sober first is not required. Neither is taking part in any treatment. They can actually drink in their rooms. Yet a three-year study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2009 showed savings of more than $4 million in the first year of the project. The average annual cost per person while homeless was $86,062 compared to $13,440 while in the housing program, and their alcohol use decreased by about one-third.

Rapid rehousing

For those in an acute housing crisis, rapid rehousing can help. The typically short-term assistance is focused on removing barriers so the individual or family can return to housing as soon as possible. Help with deposits, rents, or utilities can help avoid long exposures or a return to homelessness.

Although not as effective for the chronically homeless, since they tend to need long-term help and more support, rapid rehousing has been promoted as a positive option to minimize time spent in shelters. But the interim results of HUD's Family Options Study, released in 2015, showed families who participated in rapid rehousing appeared to be just as likely to face housing problems later on as those who stayed in shelters.

The study, in partnership with Vanderbilt University and Abt Associates, included families from emergency shelters in 12 communities who were randomly assigned, though not required to accept, one of four housing interventions including a housing voucher, rapid rehousing, transitional housing, or usual care, which is defined as the emergency shelter system or services a family would normally access in their communities.

The study looked at housing stability, family preservation, adult and child well-being, and self-sufficiency to measure the effectiveness of different housing interventions. At about the halfway mark of the three-year study, those with housing vouchers experienced significantly less homelessness and housing instability than those with one of the other three options.

"I don't think anyone was surprised that vouchers reduced homelessness," says Beth Shinn, co-lead investigator for the study and professor and chair of the Department of Human and Organizational Development at Vanderbilt University. "But we were surprised by the extent to which vouchers had other benefits, including reductions in domestic violence, substance dependence, and psychological distress that can sometimes lead to homelessness," she says.

"We had expected rapid rehousing would do more than it did and that transitional housing would have benefits for psychosocial outcomes that did not materialize," Shinn adds. "But we were dumbfounded that the costs of giving families priority offers of the three interventions were so similar over 20 months."

Vouchers helped reduce the number of families returning to shelters who couldn't afford the rent on their own, and both vouchers and rapid rehousing reduced food insecurity and got families out of the shelter system a bit faster than usual care, Shinn reports. Those with vouchers also had reduced employment, but not income, while rapid rehousing participants showed increased income. But vouchers still had the most positive effect overall, especially for homelessness, Shinn concludes.

As the study continues, Shinn says they're looking at why rapid rehousing didn't affect subsequent shelter stays or housing stability. "One thing we're exploring is whether rapid rehousing worked better in some places than others and whether that had to do with the nature of the program or the housing challenges in the communities," she says. She also notes that even though rapid rehousing led to an increase in income, the families still had incomes of only a little over $10,000. "But if a family doesn't need a long-term subsidy to afford the rent, rapid rehousing could work well."

Although critics of rapid rehousing say it doesn't address the root cause, the National Alliance to End Homelessness says that it wasn't meant to. The intent is to return to permanent housing quickly, and even though some families still do become homeless again, a blog post on the alliance's website cited a study in Georgia that found that those in shelters and transitional housing were four to five times more likely to return to homelessness than those in rapid rehousing.

Middle — Quixote Village grew out of the vision of a self-governing tent camp in Olympia.

Tiny houses and tent cities

For some communities, a different housing style is being looked at as an affordable housing option. Quixote Village was a tent city that evolved into 30 tiny cottages, each 144 square feet, and a community building providing a kitchen, showers, laundry, and meeting space. Originally known as Camp Quixote, it started as a civil disobedience response to recently passed antihomeless regulations in Olympia, Washington, according to Jill Severn, board member and former president of Panza, the nonprofit organization created to support the camp and the legal owner and landlord of Quixote Village.

A pedestrian interference ordinance required that a six-foot space from the edge of buildings be kept clear so that shoppers could enter and exit the stores, says Steve Friddle, the principal planner with the city of Olympia who worked with Panza and the residents on both the ordinance and the village. "But in the Pacific Northwest, it's also the area that protected the homeless from the rain with awnings and recessed doorways," he adds.

Before the homeless were evicted for setting up tents on a downtown parking lot, a church offered them space on its property. As other churches joined in and worked with the city, an encampment ordinance was created that allowed the tent city to move from one church parking lot to the next every 90 to 180 days.

"It was the beginning of building trust," Friddle says. "It was a learning experience for everyone, as the homeless were learning to live together with the churches, who were learning how to deal with the city. But there was communication and people were getting to know those that lived in the tent city."

Friddle's perspective began to change, too. "They had a home," he says. "Olympia was their home. Camp Quixote was their home. So they weren't homeless. What they didn't have was a house." But when the traveling tent city evolved into Quixote Village, they did.

Neighbors around the village, which is located on an industrial property leased from Thurston County for $1 a year, expressed fears of decreased property values and increased crime. "It's an understandable fear," Friddle says. "[But] this was also home for the residents of Quixote Village and they didn't want problems either."

Including the value of the donated land and other services, the total cost for the village would have been around $3.05 million, according to Severn. Envisioned by the residents, the settlement is a clean place with sober residents, she adds. They pay 30 percent of their income in rent and also do the basic maintenance, cleaning, and landscape work. An elected five-member executive committee and a landlord, Panza, means there's less oversight and self-governing by the residents, but Severn says they don't seem to mind.

The cost of doing nothing

Providing housing is not without its critics, including those who believe it incentivizes being homeless or that it's too costly for the taxpayers to bear. But communities are starting to see the economic impact in a different way. Those chronically on the street account for less than 15 percent of all homeless, but according to USICH, the estimated national public cost of chronic homelessness was between $3.7 and $4.7 billion in 2013.

And savings are being replicated across the country. One study found that every homeless person housed in New York City saved taxpayers $10,000 a year. In Utah, each chronically homeless person housed results in a net savings of $8,000. And researchers at UNC Charlotte released a report including two years of data indicating that Moore Place, an 85-unit housing project for the chronically homeless, had already saved the county $2.4 million, due to fewer emergency room visits, hospital stays, time spent in jail, and a reduction in medic calls and ambulance rides.

Quixote Village now consists of 30 tiny houses, a vegetable garden, and a community building with showers, laundry facilities, a communal kitchen, and living and dining space. Residents of the tent camp moved to Quixote Village on Christmas Eve in 2013. Photos by Tim Ransom. Courtesy quixotevillage.com.

Community and government responses

The nation's first comprehensive federal strategy has been created with objectives to end homelessness by 2015 for veterans and 2020 for families, children, and youth. The revised date of 2017 is now the goal to end chronic homelessness, defined by HUD as those with a disabling condition who've been continuously homeless for a year or more or have had four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.

But for some communities, the challenge is daunting. While Portland and Seattle have declared states of emergency, other cities with a shortage on beds, including Los Angeles, have passed or are discussing regulations to open public buildings for emergency housing or let people legally live in their cars.

In Seattle, officials aren't disbanding tent cities, but sanctioning them. With a 21 percent increase in the unsheltered between 2014 and 2015, Mayor Ed Murray proposed up to three new encampments, each allowing 100 people to live there for a year.

Advocates say these interim measures can keep people out of jail for sleeping in public spaces and are also preferred for some of the homeless whose work schedules don't fit shelters' required line-up times or for couples who want to stay together. While not a long-term solution, these camps can provide a safe place to live until permanent supportive housing becomes available.

States now can also get a boost in financing projects with the recent announcement that Medicaid funds could be used for supportive housing services. Acknowledging the connection between housing and health, in June the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services let the states know that this money could be used to help the chronically homeless find and maintain housing. Although not approved to pay for housing itself, these funds can free up money that states could then use for new construction.

Expanding our options to include different types of housing can play a big role in addressing the homeless problem, according to Friddle, formerly with Olympia but now the director of the Community Development Department in Fife, Washington.

"I think of housing as a three-foot length of chain and every style of housing represents one link. One end of the chain represents folks living in the woods, under bridges, and in our doorways. At the other end could be a penthouse in Manhattan." Near the beginning of the chain, he says, there "is a range of affordable housing types, and as people's lives stabilize they can move up or down the chain. The key is that all forms of housing are linked together." Tiny houses, he adds, are a critically important new link.

As far as ending homelessness, it remains to be seen if the federal goals can be met. Some states are making progress but others are clearly struggling. More than half of the nation's homeless were counted in five states, including California with 21 percent. And between 2014 and 2015, 17 states had increases in homelessness. Although the practice of housing first is showing promising results, the struggle with funding and finding affordable housing continues to be a challenge, especially in states with high housing costs.

But according to the 2015 survey, the U.S. is headed in the right direction. Overall, homelessness declined two percent between 2014 and 2015 and 11 percent since 2010. During that same time period, the number of homeless individuals declined less than one percent but the figure has dropped nine percent since 2010. And families experiencing homelessness decreased five percent between 2014 and 2015, while decreasing 15 percent in the last five years, due in large part to the decline of unsheltered families.

When asked if we're on track to end homelessness for children and families by 2020, Shinn says we're making headway.

"I think we've learned a lot about how to end homelessness for children and families, and it wouldn't cost much more than what we're spending now," she says. "But whether or not we do it depends on political will."

Debbie Sullivan Reslock is a freelance writer and partner with Reslock and Sullivan, LLC in Evergreen, Colorado.

Resources

HUD's 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report: http://tinyurl.com/pb47woz

No Safe Place, from the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty: www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place

Out of Reach, from the National Low Income Housing Coalition: http://tinyurl.com/ojalrpx

Housing First: www.usich.gov/solutions/housing/housing-first.

Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness: http://tinyurl.com/pzpcmhe