The Problem
In her recent New York Times series “Invisible Child,” Andrea Elliott chronicles the life of 11-year-old New York City local, Dasani. The articles take you through a walk in her shoes:
She wakes up to the sound of breathing. The smaller children lie tangled beside her, their chests rising and falling under winter coats and wool blankets. A few feet away, their mother and father sleep near a mop bucket they use as a toilet. Two other children share a mattress by the rotting wall where the mice live, opposite the baby, whose crib is warmed by a hair dryer perched on a milk crate.[1]Politicians on both sides of the aisle have recognized Dasani’s struggle as a major policy challenge. In 2003, the Bush Administration established its goal to end chronic homelessness and made subsequent changes to budget proposals toward this goal.[2] Campaigning for similar hopes, Mayor Bill de Blasio has recently been elected for his promise to reduce inequality in New York City. The homeless and specifically homeless children like Dasani exemplify the people the new mayor aims to help.
New York State’s constitution guarantees the right to shelter for all New Yorkers regardless of the vicissitudes that brought an individual or family to request help. As a result, New York City spends far greater amounts than other communities in its efforts against homelessness. In 1995, the city spent $500 million to support an average daily count of 24,472 homeless individuals.[3] Today, the Coalition of the Homeless, an advocacy group, estimates that there are over 50,000 homeless in New York City.[4]
The homeless can be categorized into three groups: (1) the transitionally homeless, (2) the chronically homeless, and (3) the episodically homeless.[5] Understanding these categories will help to address two salient policy questions- who should the city’s homeless policy target? And what are the expected outcomes?
- Transitional Shelter Users: This population represents the largest percent of adult shelter users, and their typical length of stay in a shelter is one day. In this case, the shelter serves truly as an emergency service. Although the transitional group represents the majority of cases of homelessness, they do not use the majority of shelter resources due to high turnover.
- Chronic Shelter Users: In this case, the shelter does not serve as an ephemeral emergency service, but instead, it is used as ersatz long-term housing. Although this group is generally has fewer cases than the transitional shelter users, they use the greatest percentage of shelter resources.
- Episodic Shelter Users: This subgroup of the homeless population generally represents the smallest percent of adult shelter users. In this case, the length of the shelter stay misrepresents the length of a person’s homelessness. Typically, this type of shelter user will spend some time in a shelter and some time on the streets or in other institutions, such as hospitals or jails.[6]
Policy Options
Public Housing
In the United States, there are about 1.1 million households living in public housing with an additional 1.4 million in other project-based housing units. Of these households, approximately 60 percent are families living with children.[7] Since 2000, Congress has required (through the McKinney Vento Act) that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) set aside 30 percent of its allocation on this type of permanent housing program.[8]
One of the positive aspects of a public housing program is that it directly addresses the mismatch between income and housing costs in New York City by making housing more affordable. These types of housing placements appear to reduce demand on the single-adult shelter system.[9] HUD estimates that the 11.5% decline in chronic homelessness since 2001 can be attributed to the McKinney Vento funding of 60,000 units.[10]
There are also some negative aspects of public housing. First, this type of housing assistance does not allow for geographic mobility. So, for example, if a recipient worked far from his public housing unit, he would not have the option to move closer to his work. Similarly, families would not have the option to move closer to a child’s school, after-school program, or relatives that might provide childcare. Another issue is that public housing has historically been located in high poverty neighborhoods.[11] As discussed in the problem memo, this segregation could have a cumulative economic and cultural effect for the city as a whole. With public housing it is also difficult for the city to easily increase the number of units available as demand fluctuates. Increasing the amount of public housing require a large capital and political investment.
Housing Vouchers
Housing vouchers subsidize low-income households to live in private-market housing. Typically, families must pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent. This policy option is not an entitlement program, and like public housing, individuals must apply and qualify to receive assistance. Nationally, approximately 1.95 million households receive housing vouchers. Just under 2/3 of these households are families with children.[12]
Similar to the public housing policy option, housing vouchers assume the reason for homelessness is due to a housing affordability problem. One positive characteristic of this program is that recipients have the opportunity to choose where they live, which might be into a more diverse or safer neighborhood. Research finds that female youth are particularly sensitive to such a move. Participation in a housing voucher program is associated with improvements in mental health for females and a drop in likelihood for a female youth to be arrested for a crime.[13] The cost of housing vouchers is also estimated to be 20 percent less than public housing because the private market is more efficient (Burdick-Will and Ludwig 309)[14]. This type of program also allows for more flexibility in spending compared to public housing.
One negative to housing vouchers is that landlords may avoid renting to voucher recipients because they wish to avoid low income tenants.[15] Research also indicates that low-income households already living in the private market do not move to substantially different neighborhoods after receiving a voucher.[16] If households are able to move to different neighborhoods, they may in turn not have easy access to necessary resources like affordable childcare centers.[17] Generally, the benefits of housing vouchers tend to be nonmonetary for the participating households.[18]
Community Development Strategies
As a result of the scope of New York City’s shelter system, a decent amount of data is collected on the city’s shelter users. One data point the city collects is the addresses of shelter users prior to them becoming homeless. “Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of New York’s homeless families come from three areas: Harlem (15 percent of total), the South Bronx (25 percent), and the Bedford-Stuyvesant/East New York neighborhoods (21 percent).[19]” One preventative strategy would be to improve these neighborhoods before instances of homelessness occur. This might involve place-based policies for attracting investment and new business. A program for aiding displaced workers, such as wage insurance or skills education. It could also involve a program to help match workers to new jobs.[20]
The community development approach is based on the idea that the homeless are living in concentrated neighborhoods prior to becoming homeless, and it assumes that there is a relationship between neighborhood and life outcomes.[21] This assumption is supported by historical data where distressed communities that experience economic shocks have persistently low rates of growth in the long-term.[22] Unemployment, while temporary, can similarly lead to a long-term cumulative loss in wages.[23]
One of the benefits of this strategy is that investing in communities can reduce infrastructure costs that might be associated with building in a new location.[24] Investments in skills training may lead to higher wages, which would benefit the community through higher income tax collections or lower receipts of social insurance.[25] If a community development plan is successfully designed, it could be more effective at addressing the root causes of homelessness compared to public housing or housing voucher programs.
Endnotes
[1] Elliott, Andrea. “Invisible Child: Girl in the Shadows: Dasani’s Homeless Life.” The New YorkTimes 9 December 2013: 1. Web. < http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/?n=Top/News/U.S./U.S.%20States,%20Territories%20and%20Possessions/New%20York%3Fref=newyork#/?chapt=1>
[2] Culhane, Dennis P. and Stephen Metraux. “Rearranging the Deck Chairs or Reallocating theLifeboats?: Homelessness Assistance and Its Alternatives.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74.1 (Winter 2008): 115. Web. < http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=spp_papers>
[3]Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Susan M. Wachter. “Homelessness and Public Shelter Provision in New York City” Housing and Community Development in New York City: Facing the Future. Ed. Michael H Schill. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. 203. <http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=dennis_culhane>
[4] Frazier, Ian. “Hidden City.” The New Yorker 28 October 2013: 1. Web. < http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/10/28/131028fa_fact_frazier?currentPage=all>
[5]Culhane and Metraux 111.
[6]Culhane and Metraux 113.
[7] Burdick-Will, Julia and Jens Ludwig. “Neighborhood and Community Initiatives.” TargetingInvestments in Children: Fighting Poverty When Resources are Limited. Ed. Phillip B.Levine and David J. Zimmerman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, August 2010.309. Web. < http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11731.pdf>
[8]Culhane and Metraux 120.
[9]Culhane, Metraux, and Wachter 213.
[10]Culhane and Metraux 115.
[11]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 305.
[12]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 309.
[13]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 316.
[14]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 309.
[15]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 309.
[16]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 305.
[17]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 307.
[18] Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, Jens Ludwig, Lawrence F. Katz, etc. “Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Final Impacts Evaluation.” National Bureau of Economic Research (November 2011): xxxi. Web. < http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/MTOFHD_fullreport_v2.pdf>
[19]Culhane, Metraux, and Wachter 222.
[20] Greenstone, Michael and Adam Looney. “An Economic Strategy to Renew AmericanCommunities.” The Hamilton Project. October 2010: 5. Web. < http://economics.mit.edu/files/6047>
[21]Burdick-Will and Ludwig 310.
[22]Greenstone and Looney 5.
[23]Greenstone and Looney 7.
[24]Greenstone and Looney 14.
[25]Greenstone and Looney 14.