Homelessness is a Housing Problem, by Gregg Colburn and Clayton Page Aldern
Review by Dave Gamrath
In their book Homelessness is a Housing Problem: How Structural Factors Explain U.S. Patterns, Gregg Colburn and Data Scientist Clayton Page Aldern use detailed statistical analysis to explain regional variation in rates of homelessness across major US metropolitan areas.
Book Review:
America’s homelessness crisis is far worse in certain coastal cities. For example, Seattle and San Francisco’s per capita homeless population is five times that of Chicago and Detroit. Why is this? In their book Homelessness is a Housing Problem: How Structural Factors Explain U.S. Patterns, Gregg Colburn and Data Scientist Clayton Page Aldern use detailed statistical analysis to explain regional variation in rates of homelessness across major US metropolitan areas. As one can easily guess, the title of their book is a spoiler alert as to what the data reveals: “regional variation in rates of homelessness can be explained by the costs and availability of housing.”
There are many strongly held opinions as to the primary causes of homelessness, many of which focus on the personal attributes and behaviors of homeless individuals. The authors analyzed many of these factors, including poverty, labor markets, race, “ruinous compassion,” addiction, mental illness, and many others. What the data shows is that although individual factors may have led to a specific individual becoming homeless, they don’t show a positive statistical relationship as to the differences in rates of homelessness between regions.
For example, midwestern cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago have higher poverty rates but lower homelessness than coastal cities. The consequences of being poor in coastal cities is more profound. Also, coastal cities have robust labor markets yet high homelessness.
Regarding race, African Americans make up 13% of Americans, but 40% of the homeless, largely due to historic (and current) racialized structural disadvantages in housing, lending practices, education, health care, employment, policing and incarceration. “Fewer things need to go wrong in your life for you to end up losing your housing if you’re Black.” But cities with high Black populations, such as Detroit and Baltimore, have lower rates of homelessness than coastal cities.
It’s “a persistent argument that certain cities have created a culture that encourages homelessness to thrive and persist – as a practice and a choice.” I.E., when communities provide homeless people “ruinous compassion” in the form of support programs, you actually encourage homelessness. The data shows the opposite. Access to assistance programs reduces homelessness, and it’s uncommon for homeless people to move to cities with more generous assistance programs. Homeless individuals are actually far less mobile than housed people. Over 80% of people experiencing homelessness remained in the same community after becoming homeless. That’s not surprising, given the importance of community in helping a person exit homelessness.
Regarding mental health and drug use, studies indicate that “between 25 and 40 percent of the individual (i.e., non-family) homeless population has a substance use disorder and about a quarter of the single adult population experiences some form of mental illness.” Restated, the majority of people experiencing homelessness do not have these conditions. Also, “the vast majority of people with these conditions never lose their housing.” It is true that the longer a person experiences homelessness, the more “scarring” they experience, and the harder it becomes for them to exit homelessness, and it’s not surprising that the harsh and traumatic conditions of homelessness often drive people to use drugs and alcohol to cope. But mental illness and addiction don’t explain differing rates of homelessness between regions.
Where the data did explain the regional differences in homelessness is in vacancy rates and the cost of housing. Once the cost of housing exceeds 30% of household income, homelessness rises. Low income combined with high rents leads to homelessness. When rental property vacancy rates are low, rents go up accordingly. Thus, low vacancy rates join high rental costs “as the only variables that explain regional variation in homelessness.” It’s not just a shortage of low-income housing; overall housing shortages drive homelessness.
Fast growing regions don’t necessarily have growing homelessness. Communities with growing population that build sufficient new housing don’t experience homelessness growth. Coastal cities tend to have geographical constraints, such as water or mountains, that limit new housing. These constraints are less common in the Midwest; thus, Midwestern cities are better able to build more housing to meet demand.
Seattle embodies the ‘perfect storm’ for housing instability and homelessness: high population growth combined with restrictions on new construction have led to high housing costs and low vacancy rates. “Zoning regulations help explain why multifamily housing isn’t more abundant in Seattle.” In Seattle, multifamily housing is illegal on approximately 70% of the city’s residential parcels.
It’s not just Seattle. Many cities have complex regulatory approval processes that slow down construction. Land use restrictions, including “minimum lot sizes, height limits, setbacks, and open space requirements” all work to limit needed new housing, both permanent as well as transitional housing, such as tiny homes.
The authors write that “if we understand homelessness as a housing problem, we can also understand it as solvable.” They also write that “much of the money spent on homelessness today constitutes a response to the crisis rather than an alternative to it.” So, what’s the alternative? “The prescription is simple: policymakers must increase the number of affordable housing units and provide subsidies and rental assistance to households to ensure they can access housing.” To make this happen, the authors layout multiple required steps.
“First, public perception of homelessness must change.” We must stop framing homelessness as an individual problem. We need to stop dehumanizing the homeless, and to “embrace homelessness as structural in nature, as opposed to a product of bad decisions or social deviancy.”
We need effective new permanent housing programs. “Housing must be de-commodified.” A portion of the housing stock must be decoupled from the private market. We need a reframing of housing to see housing for low-income households as a public good. In our cities, we need to move away from the rule of single-family homes, which will take the support of “homeowners who are willing to advocate and vote for increased housing density; people who are willing to live with less space.”
We need far greater resources dedicated to homelessness from all levels of government. Currently, the federal government commits a relatively low amount towards low-income housing, while sacrificing significant tax revenue through the mortgage interest tax deduction. This deduction could be eliminated and that revenue put towards an expansion of existing federal programs housing programs, including shelters, transitional housing, Safe Havens, rapid rehousing and permanent supportive housing. At the state and local level, we need expanded rental subsidies for households facing homelessness, and investments in affordable and transitional housing. We also need zoning revisions that ease construction of affordable housing, that allow for alternative forms of housing (such as tiny homes), and allow new construction technologies (such as building blocks from recycled plastic).
Can we afford this? Actually, these needed investments could save taxpayers money. The authors quote studies from the US and Canada that “show annual costs of homelessness between $30,000 and $100,000 per person.” Costs associated with homelessness include “police, prison, probation, parole, courts, emergency department, hospital-admitted patients, ambulance, mental health, and homelessness services data.” And don’t forget the cost to people experiencing homelessness, who become sick more often, are “more likely to be victims of physical and sexual assault,” and tragically die younger than the housed population. “Homelessness exacts a considerable toll on society,” both on the homeless as well as the housed.
Can we actually make these changes and significantly reduce homelessness in America? As proof that we can, the authors point to recent government action that, between 2009 and 2019, reduced homelessness amongst American veterans by 50%! To accomplish this, policymakers showed political will, resource commitment, and mobilized several federal agencies. Proof-positive that this can be done, if we just decide to do it.
Reviewer Opinion:
At only 200 pages, this data-driven book is easy to read and extremely informative.
Reviewer Rating of Book:
Thumb way up.