The Economic Consequences of Homelessness in The US

The e-Advocate
Monthly
…a Compilation of Works on:
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in The US
Proverbs 14:31 | Deuteronomy 15:11
Proverbs 10:3 | Psalm 34:-9-10
Psalm 23:1 | Philippians 4:19
Matthew 25:35 | Matthew 8:20
Ezekiel 16:49 | Psalm 10:17
“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential”
Special Edition| June 2018

Turning the Improbable
Into the Exceptional!
Page 2 of 289

The Social Cost of Homelessness
Average Daily Number of Homeless in the US 553,742 1
Average Minimum Cost per Person $30,000 2
Minimum Social Cost to US taxpayers $16,612,260,000 3
($332M per state)
Federal Government Support for Homelessness $5,822,000,000 2
($116M per state)
Discrepancy $10,790,260,000
($216M per state short)
Solutions
1. The A/F Inner-Cities Strategic Revitalization Initiative (M. Merrill)
2. The A/F Strategic Housing Revitalization Initiative (A. Carbone)
3. The A/F Balanced Home Mortgage Initiative (L. Folks)
4. The A/F Jobs Training Educational Redevelopment Economic Emancipation Initiative (R. Green)
Note:
In Silicon Valley, CA, the top 5% of the Homeless population accounts for 47% of all public costs.
1
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
2
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
3
The stated costs only reflect traditional solutions, such as Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing Support, and
Permanent Supportive Housing. Costs not factored-in to these equations include, but are by no means limited to,
the following: Financial, Health Care, Environmental, Criminal Justice, and Social.
Page 3 of 289

Page 4 of 289

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP).
The stated objectives are:
1. Community Mobilization;
2. Social Intervention;
3. Provision of Opportunities;
4. Organizational Change and Development;
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and
internationally.
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
ISBN: ......... ../2017
......... Printed in the USA
Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Philadlephia, PA
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS
Page 5 of 289

Page 6 of 289

Dedication
______
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,
professional, familial, and other challenges.
We pray that you will bear in mind:
Matthew 19:26 (NIV)
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,
but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added)
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will
accomplish:
Blessings!!
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Page 7 of 289

Page 8 of 289

The Transformative Justice Project
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach
The way we accomplish all this is a follows:
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and
Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our
precious children, therefore, particularly young people of
color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they
come into contact with the law.
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on
elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates
more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at
The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the
“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts
of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational
professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency.
We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected
officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about
transforming whole communities, and we labor to change
their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal
of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young
people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their
mistakes.
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court)
process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for
our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce
without the stigma of a criminal record;
2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice
program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the
community;
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering
seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic
issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;
4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all
parties;
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate
collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally
Page 9 of 289

6. 4 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate
Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process
on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system.
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate
Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs
of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through
these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced &
protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out
of the prison pipeline.
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to
help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we
serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.*
Thank you in advance for your support!
* FYI:
1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around
$43,000.00 per child, per year.
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over
$148,000.00 per child, per year.
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking
to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although
the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced
where people of color are involved.
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young.
Our young people do not belong behind bars.
- Jack Johnson
4
In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.
Page 10 of 289

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
…a collection of works on
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in The US
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”
Atlanta
Philadelphia
______
John C Johnson III
Founder & CEO
Rev. Mark L. Merrill
Executive Director, Northeast
(878) 222-0450
Voice | Data | SMS
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
Page 11 of 289

Page 12 of 289

Biblical Authority
______
Proverbs 14:31 “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is
generous to the needy honors him.”
Deuteronomy 15:11 “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I
command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the
poor, in your land.’”
Proverbs 10:3 “The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the
craving of the wicked.”
Psalm 34:-9-10 “Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him have no
lack! The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the LORD lack no
good thing.”
Psalm 23:1 “A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.”
Philippians 4:19 “And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in
glory in Christ Jesus.”
Matthew 25:35 “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me
drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
Matthew 8:20 “And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have
nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”
Ezekiel 16:49 “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
Psalm 10:17 “O LORD, you hear the desire of the afflicted; you will strengthen their
heart; you will incline your ear.”
Page 13 of 289

Page 14 of 289

Table of Contents
…a compilation of works on
The Economic Consequences
of Homelessness in The US
Biblical Authority
I. Introduction: Facts About Homelessness……………………….. 17
II. Unemployment…………………………………………………….. 29
III. The Working Poor…………………………………………………. 49
IV. Mental Health……………………………………………………… 79
V. Affordable Housing……………………………………………….. 89
VI. Public Assistance…………….………………………………….. 117
VII. Homeless Shelters………………………………...................... 131
VIII. The Criminalization of Homelessness………………………… 157
IX. Traditional Solutions…………………………………………….. 175
X. The Advocacy Foundation Balanced
Home Mortgage Initiative………………………………. 189
XI. References……………………………………………………..... 255
Attachments
A. Homeless Assessment Report to Congress
B. Ending Chronic Homelessness
C. State & Local Level Recommendations
Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 15 of 289

Page 16 of 289

I. Introduction
10 Facts About Homelessness
10/13/2014 | Updated Dec 06, 2017
By Bill Quigley
Renee Delisle was one of over 3,500 homeless people in Santa Cruz when she found
out she was pregnant. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported she was turned away from a
shelter because they did not have space for her. While other homeless people slept in
cars or under culverts, Renee ended up living in an abandoned elevator shaft until her
water broke.
Jerome Murdough, 56, a homeless former Marine, was arrested for trespass in New
York because he was found sleeping in a public housing stairwell on a cold night. The
New York Times reported that one week later, Jerome died of hyperthermia in a jail cell
heated to over 100 degrees.
Paula Corb and her two daughters lost their home and have lived in their minivan for
four years. They did laundry in a church annex, went to the bathroom at gas stations,
and did their studies under street lamps, according to America Tonight.
________
Fact 1: Over half a million people are homeless. On any given night, there are over
600,000 homeless people in the U.S., according to the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). Most people are spending the night either in homeless
Page 17 of 289

shelters or in some sort of short-term transitional housing. Slightly more than a third are
living in cars or under bridges or are in some other way living unsheltered.
Fact 2: One quarter of homeless people are children. HUD reports that on any given
night, over 138,000 of the homeless in the U.S. are children under the age of 18.
Thousands of these homeless children are unaccompanied, according to HUD. Another
federal program, No Child Left Behind, defines “homeless children” more broadly and
includes not just those living in shelters or transitional housing but those who are
sharing the housing of other persons due to economic hardship; living in cars, parks,
bus or train stations; or awaiting foster-care placement. Under this definition, the
National Center for Homeless Education reported in September 2014 that local school
districts reported there are over 1 million homeless children in public schools.
Fact 3: Tens of thousands of veterans are homeless. Over 57,000 veterans are
homeless each night, according to HUD. Sixty percent of them are in shelters, the rest
unsheltered. Nearly 5,000 are female.
Fact 4: Domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness among
women.According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP),
more than 90 percent of homeless women are victims of severe physical or sexual
abuse, and escaping that abuse is a leading cause of their homelessness.
Fact 5: Many people are homeless because they cannot afford rent. The lack of
affordable housing is a primary cause of homelessness, according to the NLCHP. HUD
has seen its budget slashed by over 50 percent in recent decades, resulting in the loss
of 10,000 units of subsidized low-income housing each and every year.
Fact 6: There are fewer places for poor people to rent than before. According to the
NLCHP, one eighth of the nation’s supply of low-income housing has been permanently
lost since 2001. The U.S. needs at least 7 million more affordable apartments for lowincome
families, and as a result, millions of families spend more than half of their
monthly income on rent.
Fact 7: In the last few years millions have lost their homes. Over 5 million
homes have been foreclosed on since 2008; that’s one out of every 10 homes with a
mortgage. This has caused even more people to search for affordable rental property.
Fact 8: The government does not help as much as you think. There is enough
public rental assistance to help about one out of every four extremely low-income
households. Those who do not receive help are on multi-year waiting lists. For example,
Charlotte just opened up their applications for public housing assistance for the first time
in 14 years, and over 10,000 people applied.
Fact 9: One in five homeless people suffers from untreated severe mental illness.
While about 6 percent of the general population suffers from severe mental illness, 20 to
25 percent of the homeless suffer from severe mental illness, according to government
Page 18 of 289

studies. Half of this population self-medicate and are at further risk for addiction and
poor physical health. A University of Pennsylvania study tracking nearly 5,000 homeless
people for two years discovered that investing in comprehensive health support and
treatment of physical and mental illnesses is less costly than incarceration, shelter and
hospital services for the untreated homeless.
Fact 10: Cities are increasingly making homelessness a crime. A 2014 survey of
187 cities by the NLCHP found that 24 percent of cities make it a city-wide crime to beg
in public, 33 percent make it illegal to stand around or loiter anyplace in the city, 18
percent make it a crime to sleep anywhere in public, 43 percent make it illegal to sleep
in your car, and 53 percent make it illegal to sit or lie down in particular public places.
And the number of cities criminalizing homelessness is steadily increasing.
________
Facts on Homelessness
Scope of Homelessness in the United States
On a single night in January 2017, there were 553,742 people experiencing
homelessness in the United States; 65% were sheltered individuals and 35% were
unsheltered individuals.
20% of those experiencing
homelessness (114,829
individuals) were children under the
age of 18.
10% (53,438 individuals) were
between the ages of 18 and 24.
Of the 168,257 youth (people under
24), 40,799 were unaccompanied.
12% (4,800) of unaccompanied
youth were minors under the age of
18.
“Unaccompanied youth were
more likely to be unsheltered
(55%) than both all people
experiencing homelessness (35%) and all people experiencing
homelessness as individuals (48%).”
70% (385,475) were 25 years old or older.
Page 19 of 289

Two thirds of those experiencing homelessness were individuals, while one third
identified as a member of a family experiencing homelessness.
24% of individuals (86,962) and 5% of people in families (8,457) met the
definition of chronically homeless.*
Chronic homelessness among individuals increased by 12% from 2016
but has declined overall by 27% (32,851) since 2007.
Nearly one quarter of individuals experiencing homelessness had chronic
patterns of homelessness (86,962).
70% of chronically homeless individuals were unsheltered, while only 48%
of all individuals experiencing homelessness were unsheltered.
California accounted for more than half of the nation’s unsheltered
chronically homeless individuals (53%).
40,056 veterans were experiencing homelessness in the US (9% of all homeless
adults), of which less than 10% were women.
Since 2009, the number of homeless veterans has decreased by 45%
(33,311).
Homelessness nationally increased by 0.7% between 2016 and 2017, accounted
for by a 9% increase in unsheltered homeless individuals and a 3% decrease in
sheltered homeless individuals. Since 2007, homelessness has declined overall
by 14%.
* Chronically homeless individuals are individuals with disabilities who have either been
continuously homeless for one year or more or who have experienced at least four
episodes of homelessness in the past three years where the combined length of time
homeless in those occasions is at least 12 months.
Scope of Homelessness in Philadelphia
Each year, Philadelphia homeless outreach organizations engaged over 6,000
individuals living on the street, in cars, abandoned buildings, train/bus stations,
and other places not meant for human habitation.
Approximately 15,000 people (including families) access shelter in Philadelphia
each year. In addition, numerous individuals are turned away from shelter due to
capacity.
2015
UNSHELTERED
TOTAL*
2015 CENTER
CITY COUNT
ONLY
2016
UNSHELTERED
TOTAL*
2016 CENTER
CITY COUNT
ONLY
2017
UNSHELTERED
TOTAL
January 510 241 525 225 799
Page 20 of 289

May 620 417 712 348 903
August 951 509 930 439 997
November 757 445 779 458 955
*Starting in 2014, unsheltered counts include increased coverage of the Kensington area
and other communities that were not previously included, causing street count numbers
to increase.
Causes of Homelessness in Philadelphia
The causes of homelessness are diverse and related to many systemic and institutional
structures within our country. We recognize that there are many causes of
homelessness and many are interwoven. Unfortunately, there is not always good data
to demonstrate the impact of these forces.
For our purposes, we have chosen to highlight only a few causes of homelessness in
Philadelphia with supporting data
1. Poverty from a lack of jobs at competitive living wages.
Philadelphia has a 26% poverty rate, one of the highest in the nation. Of that
26%, nearly half (12.2%) are living in deep poverty, with incomes below 50% of
the federal poverty limit.
2. Disparity between housing costs and minimum wage, public supports, or
earned benefits.
In Philadelphia, a person would have to work 106 hours per week at the
minimum hourly wage of $7.25 to afford even a modest one-bedroom apartment.
Pennsylvania’s Supplemental Security Income payment is only $750 per month,
while the average fair market rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,003 per
month -- nearly double the amount of the SSI payment.
Page 21 of 289

3. Lack of affordable housing and inadequate housing assistance.
Over half (56%) of Philadelphians pay more than 30% of their income on rent,
which is a reflection of low incomes and unavailable housing, rather than simply
high rent costs.
There are only 41 affordable housing units for every 100 extremely low income
households (those making $23,850 or less per year). This means 60% of
extremely low income households must maintain housing above their means, a
recipe for financial instability.
Roughly 154,000 Philadelphians – more than one in four – live under 30% of the
Area Median Income (AMI) of $38,253.
4. Lack of affordable health care.
In Philadelphia, 10% of residents are without health insurance.
Of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County once again ranked 67th
(worst) for health outcomes and 67th (worst) for health factors including health
behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors, and physical environment.
More than 10% of people who seek substance abuse or mental health treatment
in our public health system are homeless.
5. Inadequate support for mental health and substance use challenges.
In January 2016, one in five people experiencing homelessness had a serious
mental illness, and a similar percentage had a chronic substance use disorder.
Research from the Collaborative Initiative to Help End Chronic Homelessness
(CICH), a joint effort of HUD and Veterans Affairs, found that at program entry,
72% of participants had a substance use disorder and 76% had a mental illness.
6. Racial inequality.
According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
the National Alliance to End Homelessness, a disproportionate number of
minorities experience homelessness compared to their white counterparts.
Minorities are about 1.5 times – and Black Americans 3 times – more likely to be
homeless than White Americans.
The rate of unsheltered homelessness among Latinx/Hispanic individuals
increased by 35% in 2017, compared to a 6% increase among the non-
Latinx/Hispanic community.
Page 22 of 289

7. National opioid crisis.
Following national trends due to the opioid epidemic, Philadelphia experienced a
drastic (78%) increase in unintentional drug overdose deaths. Individuals
experiencing homelessness are at an increased risk for substance use disorders
and drug overdose, a risk amplified in Philadelphia given the low cost and high
potency of heroin sold on our streets.
In Philadelphia, the number of deaths related to unintentional drug overdose is
2.5 times greater than the number of homicides.
According to the City-sponsored Homeless Death Review Team, 87% of
homeless decedents from 2011-2015 had a known history of substance use or
abuse. For 51% of the decedents in the same time frame, drug or alcohol
intoxication was a primary or contributing cause of death and 50% of the
decedents were known to use opioids.
The rate of deaths due to unintentional drug overdose among homeless persons
doubled between 2011 and
2015.
8. Domestic Violence
On an average night, 250
individuals who are
homeless in Philadelphia
self-report as victims of
domestic violence.
In FY15, the Philadelphia
Domestic Violence Hotline
received 14,661 calls for
assistance with domestic
violence issues.
Solutions to Homelessness
At Project HOME, we believe in a
holistic approach to ending and
preventing homelessness and
poverty, including:
1. Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)
Permanent supportive housing has been shown by multiple national studies to be
a cost-effective solution to ending homelessness. Saving Lives, Saving Money,
Page 23 of 289

a study conducted by Project HOME in 2010, concluded that PSH saves $7,700
per person per year (over the cost of serving an unsheltered person).
Affordable housing is a critical component of addressing homelessness, but is
insufficient on its own. Integrating housing with case management allows
residents to receive services in a timely and convenient manner. Studies have
found that individuals and families receiving case management are more likely to
have maintained stable housing a year later.
Investments in PSH have decreased chronic homelessness by 27% since 2007.
Project HOME offers a range of subsidized housing for individuals and families
who have experienced homelessness, including 802 units of affordable
supportive housing, with 72 units in predevelopment and 170 units in the
pipeline.
2. Opportunities for employment, increased income, and education.
Breaking the cycle of homelessness and poverty requires not only housing, but
sustainable, competitive employment at living wages.
Connection to mainstream benefit and entitlement income through Benephilly,
Homeless Advocacy Project, and other resources is a key component of
preventing and ending homelessness.
Project HOME’s Adult Learning and Workforce Development Programs provide
computer classes, career training, job readiness workshops, life skills
workshops, GED classes, adult basic literacy classes, and access to other
resources to help local residents improve their lives, gain employment and
pursue higher education.
3. Affordable and accessible healthcare
Health and homelessness are inextricably linked. According to the National
Alliance to end Homelessness, an acute physical or behavioral health crisis or
any long-term disabling condition may lead to homelessness. Homelessness also
exacerbates chronic medical conditions.
Often, physical healthcare or dental care can be gateways for people to accept
behavioral health services, and holistic healthcare services which address the
whole person are the most successful.
Through Project HOME Healthcare Services, we offer integrated physical and
behavioral healthcare and recovery services and wellness programs for people
who are currently experiencing homelessness or those who are formerly
homeless, as well as for people living in the North Philadelphia community.
Page 24 of 289

4. A coordinated approach to crisis response
Homelessness prevention programs can help ensure that no one ends up in
shelters or on the streets. This includes reinvesting in economically vulnerable
neighborhoods, improving the school system, making sure people have access
to health care, and providing jobs at a living wage, as well as shelter diversion
programs.
A coordinated entry system allows individuals to receive housing and services
more quickly, and allows organizations to pool data in order to more accurately
understand our population’s needs. Project HOME is transitioning to a Central
Intake model in 2018, in tandem with the City of Philadelphia’s new Coordinated
Entry system. These structures will allow Project HOME to place vulnerable
individuals in appropriate housing a more efficient and timely manner.
Project HOME works with Philadelphia’s Office of Homeless Services and
Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbilities as a part of the local
Continuum of Care - a network of government agencies, provider organizations,
local stakeholders, and individuals currently or formerly experiencing
homelessness – to implement a strategic, city-wide response to homelessness.
Current number of beds available to homeless people in Philadelphia, according
to the 2017 Housing Inventory
Emergency: 3,652
Transitional: 1,587
Page 25 of 289

Safe Haven: 85
Permanent: 6,179
TOTAL: 11,503
Notes
It is difficult to calculate the exact number of people living on the street, because many live in
hidden park areas, vehicles, or abandoned houses, and because numbers fluctuate based on
weather.
Estimated from 2016 Housing Inventory Chart (roughly 3,800 year-round/non-seasonal beds)
times average 4 turnovers per year. City-funded shelter received approximately 10,000
unduplicated individuals in 2015 in 2,700 beds, per James Moore.
________
25 Hard To Swallow Facts About Homelessness
Posted by Sameen, Updated on March 2, 2016
Homelessness is one of those sad things that every culture has had to deal with to
some extent since the beginning of civilization. However, different cultures have
addressed the issue in different ways. For example, under more socialistic
governmental systems, homeless people are typically handled by the government. This
involves providing shelter, food, and clothing. Under more capitalist systems, they are
typically handled by individuals and organizations. While neither one of these systems is
better or worse, there is no system that has managed to fully get to the roots of the
problem. This is just one of many sad facts about homelessness.
Oftentimes homelessness starts with mental issues, post traumatic stress disorder, drug
use, and disability. One possible reaction is to assume the Darwinist position. This
would say that those who cannot provide for themselves will either go hungry or not
have a place to live. While most people don’t outright adhere to this position, it is often
the underlying assumption that many of us have, especially when we simplify the
position into lazy people and non-lazy people. Another possible position is to assume
the altruist position. This would say that we should do everything we can to help those
who have little. It too, often over simplifies the problem. Not all homeless people are the
same and many require different types of assistance. These are 25 hard to swallow
facts about homelessness.
25 California accounts for 20% of the homeless population in the United States
24 California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Massachusetts account for half of the
homeless population in the US
23 1 out of every 50 American children will be homeless at some point in their lives
Page 26 of 289

22 The 3 most commonly cited causes of homelessness are poverty, lack of affordable
housing, and unemployment
21 In any given year about 1 out of every 200 American adults will be homeless
20 A growing number of anti-homelessness laws around the country has caused the
United States to receive criticism from the United Nations Human Rights Committee
19 At least 30 cities have criminalized giving food to the homeless
18 In some areas, like Hawaii, officials have attempted to solve homelessness by
providing one way plane tickets elsewhere
17 A study at Princeton found that our brains tend to process images of homeless
people more like they process objects than actual human beings
16 There is actually an entire generation of homeless Japanese youths who live and
sleep in internet cafes
15 A 59 year old homeless man in North Carolina held up a bank for $1 in order to be
sent to jail and receive healthcare
14 Fatherless homes produce 70% of high school dropouts, 85% of kids in detention
facilities, and 90% of homeless children
13 Nearly one quarter of homeless people in the United States are veterans
12 Nearly half of those veterans have a diagnosable mental illness
11 There has been a National Hobo Convention in Britt, Iowa every year for the past
century. They even crown a King and Queen.
10 The country of Albania built hundreds of thousands of bunkers under communism.
Today some of them are used to house homeless people
9 Nearly 1/3 of homeless people in the United States are younger than 24
8 About half of the youth on the street report that their parents knew they were leaving
but didn't care
7 Sylvester Stallone was homeless and even sold his dog for $50. Not long after,
however, he sold the script for Rocky and bought back his dog for $3,000
6 Nearly 20% of youths will run away at least once
5 HIV rates are up to 9 times higher among the homeless than in comparative samples
of the population
Page 27 of 289

4 While veterans, people with disabilities, and single parent families have always been
at risk of homelessness, these days more of the working class is at risk of
homelessness than ever before
3 In some regions like Central Texas, the fastest growing population of homeless
people is women and children
2 In 2012 a homeless woman in Canada returned a purse she found that contained
$10,400
1 There are 5 times more vacant houses in the United States than the number of
homeless people
Page 28 of 289

II. Unemployment
Employment and Homelessness
Published by the National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009
This fact sheet examines the relationship between work and homelessness, including
the contribution of unemployment, underemployment, and low wages to homelessness.
It also assesses the employment barriers faced by homeless people, and strategies for
overcoming those barriers. A list of resources for further study is also provided.
IMPACT OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND LOW WAGES ON HOMELESSNESS
In recent years, media reports of a growing economy and low unemployment mask a
number of important reasons why homelessness persists, and, in some areas of the
country, is worsening. These include stagnant or falling incomes, and less secure jobs
that offer fewer benefits.
Now, as the United States experiences the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression, the homeless population has increased significantly. The worsening
Page 29 of 289

economy and rising unemployment numbers emphasize a number of reasons why
homelessness continues to exist and grow in exponential numbers in the United States.
Wages and Income
While past years have seen growth in real wages at all levels, wage growth has
collapsed over the past six months. Nominal hourly wages of production workers grew
at only one-sixth the rate from December 2007. Also workers also face a cut in hours
and nominal weekly earnings have declined. As the recent growth in wages has
declined, it illustrates that the recession affects everyone including those able to keep
their jobs while adding pressure to the consumption growth which experts estimate will
further delay economic recovery (Economic Policy Institute, 2009).
Low-wage workers have been particularly hard hit by wage trends. More than four
decades ago in 1967, a year-round worker earning the minimum wage was paid enough
to raise a family of three above the poverty line (Solar, 1995). From 1981-1990,
however, the minimum wage was frozen at $3.35 an hour, while the cost of living
increased 48% over the same period. Congress raised the minimum wage to $5.15 per
hour in 1996, and it has not been raised until 2007. In 2007, President Bush signed into
law a plan that would increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, over two years.
This increase has not kept up with the ground lost to inflation in the last 20 years; thus,
the real value of the minimum wage today is 26% less than in 1979 (The Economic
Policy Institute, 2005), worth only $4.42 in real dollars (AFL-CIO, 2005). In today’s
current market, a full-time minimum wage worker working 40 hours a week and 52
weeks per year would earn $13,624. This puts him nearly 25% below the $18,310 (US
Department of Health and Human Services, 2009) poverty level for a family of three.
This worker falls below the poverty line even after factoring in the earned income tax
credit, which was created to bring low-wage workers up to the poverty line (The
Economic Policy Institute, 2007). The Economic Policy Institute estimates that by 2009,
the minimum wage increase will raise full-time minimum wage workers above the
poverty line for a family of two for the first time in more than ten years (The Economic
Policy Institute, 2007). Even after the next wage increase to $7.25, a family of three will
remain about $3,000 below the poverty line, and a family of four will be more than
$6,000 below it [U.S. Health and Human Services]. Contrary to popular belief, the
majority of minimum-wage workers are not teenagers: approximately 79% of minimum
age workers are 20 or older (The Economic Policy Institute, 2008).
In addition to the erosion in the value of the minimum wage, there are other factors that
contribute to the decline in wage decline. As more countries compete against each
other, the result may be adding a downward pressure on wages. Also, the weakening in
union power and labor policies may have some affect on the wage decline (International
Labor Organization, 2008).
Declining wages, in turn, have put housing out of reach for many workers: a household
would need more than one full time minimum wage worker to afford a two-bedroom
rental apartment at fair market rent (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2009). In
Page 30 of 289

fact, in the median state a minimum-wage worker would have to work 87 hours each
week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at 30% of his or her income, which is the
federal definition of affordable housing. In addition, 40% of households with "worst case
housing needs" -- households paying over half their incomes for rent, living in severely
substandard housing, or both -- have at least one working person. The most recent
HUD report (2005) shows that there were nearly six million households with “worst-case
housing needs” in America.
The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in
homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners.
A survey of 23 U.S. cities found that eleven of the cities reported an increase in the
number of employed homeless people, one city reported a decrease and seven other
cities reported no change from the previous year (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2008).
In today’s economy, one of the hardest burdens for workers is the continued dramatic
decline in wage growth. For the first year of the recession, wage growth remained
relatively strong; nominal (non-inflation adjusted) hourly wages for
production/nonsupervisory workers (who comprise over 80% of payroll employment)
grew 3.9% from December 2007 to December 2008. Since that time, however, wage
growth has slowed abruptly; in May 2009, wages grew at a 1.3% annualized rate, onethird
the earlier pace (Economic Policy Institute, 2009). If this percentage continues to
drop, it will become harder for a blue-collar worker to support his or her family.
Page 31 of 289

Additionally, rising costs of gasoline and food are taking large portions of these workers’
pay checks (Economic Policy Institute, 2008).
Job Security and Underemployment
Not only have wages stagnated or declined over the last two decades, but also job
stability and job security have deteriorated. One measure of job stability, involuntary job
loss, has increased in recent years. The economy has lost nearly six million jobs since
the recession began in December 2007. Household Survey reports that the
unemployment rate increased from 8.9% to 9.5% in June 2009, which according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics added over three-quarters of a million workers to the
unemployed list (Economic Policy Institute, 2009). Additionally, people are falling victims
to long term unemployment at greater rates. The number of people out of work for 27
weeks or more is approximately 4.4 million (3 in 10 unemployed workers). The
workforce dropped from 155.1 million in May to 154.9 million in June (U.S. News &
World Report).
Displaced workers face difficulty finding new employment; when they do find work, their
new jobs pay, on average, about 13% less than the jobs they lost. And more than onefourth
of those who had health insurance on their old jobs don't have it at their new ones
(Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999). Additionally, reports indicate that from 2001-
2003, about 30% of people who had involuntarily lost jobs were not employed when
they were surveyed again (Farber, 2005). As professional and managerial jobs have
become increasingly vulnerable to downsizing, higher socioeconomic groups are
experiencing increased job instability, and the risk of job loss is becoming more equally
distributed by socioeconomic status (Farber 2005).
Another trend impacting job security is non-standard work... In 1997, almost 30% of
workers were employed in non-standard work arrangements (i.e. independent
contracting, working for a temporary help agency, day labor, or regular part-time
employment) (Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999). Temporary employment has
increased by 11% since 1972 (Kalleberg, Reskin, & Hudson, 2000). These nonstandard
work arrangements typically offer lower wages, fewer benefits, and less job
security. Even temporary jobs are being affected by the worsening economy, with
monthly losses that averaged 73,000 during the previous six months (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2009).
A useful measure of the decline in job security is underemployment. Unlike the
unemployment rate, measures of underemployment reflect not only individuals who are
unemployed, but also involuntary part-timers and those who want to work but have been
discouraged by their lack of success. As of March 2009, the underemployment rate is
15.8%, substantially higher than the 9.4% unemployment rate which translates into 24.4
million people who are underemployed or one out of every six American workers is
either unemployed or underemployed. (Economic Policy Institute, 2009). The number of
involuntarily part-time workers has nearly doubled since the start of the recession, from
4.6 million to 9.0 million. One reason for the higher level of underemployment is the
Page 32 of 289

increasing number of involuntary part-time workers -- workers who want to work full time
but have only been able to obtain part time work.
Thus, for many Americans, work provides no escape from poverty. The benefits of
economic growth have not been equally distributed; instead, they have been
concentrated at the top of income and wealth distributions. A rising tide does not lift all
boats, and in the United States today, many boats are struggling to stay afloat.
BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT FACED BY HOMELESS PEOPLE
As bad as it is for the 44% of homeless people who have jobs and can't escape
homelessness, climbing out of homelessness is virtually impossible for those without a
job. For those with limited skills or experience, opportunities for jobs that pay a living
wage are very limited. Additionally, many members of the homeless population have to
combat barriers such as limited transportation and reduced access to educational and
training programs (Long, Rio, & Rosen, 2007). In such a competitive environment, the
difficulties of job seeking as a homeless person can be almost insurmountable barriers
to employment.
Mental or physical illnesses also play vital roles in the employment participation of
homeless individuals or those at risk for becoming homeless. Research statistics
illustrate that a disability, mental or physical, can result in difficulty acquiring work. In
Page 33 of 289

addition to mental illness and substance abuse, incarceration also serves as a barrier
for employment. Incarceration can decrease the types of employment available to an
individual after release from jail or prison. Along with the previously mentioned barriers,
the lack of access to technology serves as a handicap for the homeless searching for
work. In this job market, some knowledge of computers and technology is essential for
every field. Although there are computers available through public access, some
homeless individuals lack computer knowledge and fear failure.
Much has been learned from programs designed to help homeless people obtain and
maintain employment in recent years. Studies indicate that mainstream programs,
where the homeless are a minority population, may meet some of the basic needs of
some homeless individuals but struggle to encourage employment by these individuals
and provide income and support. This shortcoming also highlights that other groups of
the homeless receive little income or employment support, i.e. single adults. Programs
directly targeted to homeless populations such as the programs funded by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Department of Health and Human
Services (Transitional Living Program for homeless youth), or The Department of Labor
which funds Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (focusing on employment) are
from descriptive accounts fairly more successful in the homeless population than
mainstream initiatives. In addition to these programs, mainstream federal employment
programs and demonstrations have particular local grantees that target homeless
people.
Because of past legislation, a variety of government funded programs exist to assist the
homeless. Studies show that programs designed to assist the homeless should be
implemented to cover a variety of concerns. An evaluation of the Job Training for the
Homeless Demonstration Program (JTHDP), authorized by the Stewart B. McKinney
Act in 1988, found that successful employment programs provide access to a wide
variety of services including housing to help the homeless overcome employment
barriers. In addition, the evaluation concluded that in order for employment programs to
be most successful, they must directly target the homeless or those at risk of becoming
homeless.
In 2003, in support of the goal of ending chronic homelessness, and building upon
previous efforts of the 1988 – 1995 Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration
Program, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, partnered together to launch the Ending Chronic Homelessness
through Employment and Housing (ECHEH) initiative. The initiative was funded by three
branches within DOL - the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), the
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and the Veterans Employment and
Training Service (VETS) - and by HUD’s Office of Special Populations. In this five year
initiative, DOL and HUD awarded a combined total of $23,615,367 to five local
workforce investment boards and their respective housing partners. A major goal of this
initiative was to develop sustainable and effective direct service partnerships between
housing providers, homeless assistance agencies, and the mainstream workforce
system.
Page 34 of 289

POLICY ISSUES
Although funding for the JTHDP program was terminated in FY1995, Congress
mandated that the U.S. Department of Labor use the expertise gained from the JTHDP
program to enhance the capacity of national employment programs such as the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to serve homeless individuals (Foscarinas, 1996). In
1998, the Work Investment Act (WIA) passed and required governments to establish
employment and training systems and adequately disperse information within their
community. Congress appropriated $5.37 billion for WIA to be implemented by 2000
(CRS Report for Congress).
According to the Center for Law and Social Policy, under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment
Act, the WIA
should be able
to implement
work-force
education and
training
strategies that
can assist lowskilled
adults
and youth gain
access to jobs
critical to local
economies. In
addition, the
Economy
Recovery Act
gives State and
Local Workforce
Investment
Boards (WIBs)
an opportunity
to implement
new innovations
such as aligning federal and state workforce education and training programs. Under
ARRA, state and local areas can involve employers, unions and other job creation
efforts to create skilled workers for these jobs and sustainable careers as the economic
recovery continues (Center for Law and Social Policy).
While employment and training programs geared to homeless people have proven to be
effective in helping homeless persons obtain work, successful completion of an
employment program by a homeless person does not necessarily end his or her
homelessness. He or she still needs a decent job and a place to live. Therefore,
transitional housing programs such as Sound Families in Seattle have become very
Page 35 of 289

eneficial. By giving these families a place to live, they appear to be better able to find
housing. In this program, employment upon entry into the transitional housing was 27%;
when these people exited their employment rate was 50% (Long, Rio, & Rosen, 2007).
Also the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness was created to organize the
federal response to homelessness to reduce and ultimately end homelessness in
America. The council focuses on federal investments and ensuring that allocations are
being dispersed to programs via public or private sectors targeting the homeless
population.
Ending homelessness will require closing the gap between incomes and housing costs.
In such an equation, jobs that pay a living wage are critical. Government, labor, and the
private sector must work in concert to ensure that all Americans who can work have an
opportunity to obtain a job, which pays a living wage, and the necessary supports, such
as child care and transportation, to keep it.
________
Footnotes
1. FMRs are the monthly amounts "needed to rent privately owned, decent, safe, and
sanitary rental housing of a modest (nonluxury) nature with suitable amenities." Federal
Register. HUD determines FMRs for localities in all 50 states.
2. The poverty line for a family of three is $12,750; for a family of four, the poverty line is
$16,813. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/ww w/poverty.html for details.
________
Homeless Youth Unemployment Is Nine Times
The National Average
One in three people experiencing homelessness is under 25.
05/04/2017 12:43 PM AEST
A landmark study has found homeless youth experience unemployment at more than
nine times the national average, further fuelling calls for the federal government to
outline a plan to address the tens of thousands of young people who find themselves
homeless each year.
Wednesday is Youth Homelessness Matters Day, a national day to highlight the impact
homelessness has on young people and its knock-on effects to broader society.
Homelessness is not just people forced to 'sleep rough' on streets or in parks, its
broader definition encompassing people who don't have a safe, stable place to live;
couch-surfing, staying with friends, living temporarily in caravan parks or motels, or
staying in refuges or shelters is also deemed 'homelessness'.
Page 36 of 289

Youth Homelessness Matters Day is being celebrated nationwide, and in Sydney, the
NSW peak body for youth homelessness Yfoundations launched its education and
employment report 'Skills to Pay the Bills'.
Surveying 700 young people statewide, the report found unemployment among young
people experiencing homelessness was 55 percent, more than nine times the current
national unemployment rate of 5.9 percent and four times the current youth
unemployment rate of 13 percent. Young people experiencing homelessness also have
far lower high school completion rates than statewide averages.
Michelle Parker, the acting CEO of Yfoundation, said up to 60,000 young people
experienced homelessness in NSW last year. Statistics around youth homelessness are
difficult to pin down, due to the 'hidden homelessness' of young people who are couchsurfing
or staying with friends, or who do not consider themselves to be homeless and
therefore do not seek out services. However, statistics cited by various homelessness
experts include:
One in three people experiencing homelessness is under the age of 25;
One in eight people experiencing homelessness is under the age of 10;
39,000 school-age children needed homelessness help last year;
Page 37 of 289

One in two adults receiving homelessness help first became homeless before
age 18;
"Today is about us getting together nationally and saying what's happening at the
moment is not OK," Parker told an event in Sydney. She said nearly 14,000 young
people accessed homelessness services in 2015-16, but that the true problem is
estimated to be more than four times higher.
"It's really quite ridiculous in Sydney. Thats a lot of people... [but] we think it might be
about a quarter, that puts the numbers around 60,000 a year."
The problem is also large in Victoria. The Council to Homeless People said Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare data found 38,400 people under the age of 25 accessed
Victorian homelessness services in 2015-16. That's nearly 40 percent of all
homelessness clients in the state. CHP's CEO Jenny Smith, too, said that number was
likely vastly lower than reality.
"Young people's homelessness is too often hidden, because many young people are
experiencing 'invisible homelessness' in the form of couch-surfing or overcrowding,"
Smith said.
Both Smith and Parker called on the federal government to introduce a targeted plan to
reduce youth homelessness. Other organizations "A perfect storm of increasing reporting of
family violence, decreasing housing affordability for families with kids, a pitifully low Youth
Allowance and rising youth unemployment is contributing to the crisis levels of homelessness
we're seeing amongst our youth," Smith said.
"In the absence of a national plan, we won't have any action. We're fortunate to have
the interest of the treasurer on housing affordability, but we're concerned he's focusing
on repurposing some of the existing funding and not actually talking about additional
resources into addressing the issue. You need a plan, a strategy, and resources to start
tackling it. We don't have any of those things."
Parker agreed.
"The last few years have been quite disappointing on a national level around what we've
got for young people," she said in Sydney.
"There's not only no plan for action on homelessness, there's no plan for young people
in Australia and that's a massive problem."
including Anglicare have also joined the call.
________
Page 38 of 289

Amid Booming Economy, Homelessness Soars
On US West Coast
By Gillian Flaccus and Geoff Mulvihill
Nov. 09, 2017
SEATTLE (AP) — In a park in the middle of a leafy, bohemian neighborhood where
homes list for close to $1 million, a tractor’s massive claw scooped up the refuse of the
homeless - mattresses, tents, wooden frames, a wicker chair, an outdoor propane
heater. Workers in masks and steel-shanked boots plucked used needles and mounds
of waste from the underbrush.
Just a day before, this corner of Ravenna Park was an illegal home for the down and
out, one of 400 such encampments that have popped up in Seattle’s parks, under
bridges, on freeway medians and along busy sidewalks. Now, as police and social
workers approached, some of the dispossessed scurried away, vanishing into a
metropolis that is struggling to cope with an enormous wave of homelessness.
That struggle is not Seattle’s alone. A homeless crisis of unprecedented proportions is
rocking the West Coast, and its victims are being left behind by the very things that
mark the region’s success: soaring housing costs, rock-bottom vacancy rates and a
Page 39 of 289

oaring economy that waits for no one. All along the coast, elected officials are
scrambling for solutions.
“I’ve got economically zero unemployment in my city, and I’ve got thousands of
homeless people that actually are working and just can’t afford housing,” said Seattle
City Councilman Mike O’Brien. “There’s nowhere for these folks to move to. Every time
we open up a new place, it fills up.”
The rising numbers of homeless people have pushed abject poverty into the open like
never before and have overwhelmed cities and nonprofits. The surge in people living on
the streets has put public health at risk, led several cities to declare states of emergency
and forced cities and counties to spend millions - in some cases billions - in a search for
solutions.
San Diego now scrubs its sidewalks with bleach to counter a deadly hepatitis A
outbreak that has spread to other cities and forced California to declare a state of
emergency last month. In Anaheim, home to Disneyland, 400 people sleep along a bike
path in the shadow of Angel Stadium. Organizers in Portland lit incense at a recent
outdoor food festival to cover up the stench of urine in a parking lot where vendors set
up shop.
Homelessness is not new on the West Coast. But interviews with local officials and
those who serve the homeless in California, Oregon and Washington - coupled with an
Associated Press review of preliminary homeless data - confirm it’s getting worse.
People who were once able to get by, even if they suffered a setback, are now pushed
to the streets because housing has become so expensive.
All it takes is a prolonged illness, a lost job, a broken limb, a family crisis. What was
once a blip in fortunes now seems a life sentence.
“Most homeless people I know aren’t homeless because they’re addicts,” said Tammy
Stephen, 54, who lives at a homeless encampment in Seattle. “Most people are
homeless because they can’t afford a place to live.”
Among the AP’s findings:
— Official counts taken earlier this year in California, Oregon and Washington
show 168,000 homeless people in the three states, according to an AP tally of
every jurisdiction in those states that reports homeless numbers to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. That is 19,000 more than were
counted two years ago, although the numbers may not be directly comparable
because of factors ranging from the weather to new counting methods.
— During the same period, the number of unsheltered people in the three states
- defined as someone sleeping outside, in a bus or train station, abandoned
building or vehicle - has climbed 18 percent to 105,000.
Page 40 of 289

— Rising rents are the main culprit. The median one-bedroom apartment in the
San Francisco Bay Area is significantly more expensive than it is in the New York
City metro area, and apartments in San Francisco are listed at a higher price
than those in Manhattan.
— Since 2015, at least 10 cities or municipal regions in California, Oregon and
Washington - and Honolulu, as well - have declared states of emergency due to
the rise of homelessness, a designation usually reserved for natural disasters.
“What do we want as a city to look like? That’s what the citizens here need to decide,”
said Gordon Walker, head of the regional task force for the homeless in San Diego,
where the unsheltered homeless population has spiked by 18 percent in the past year.
“What are we going to allow? Are we willing to have people die on the streets?”
With alarming frequency, the West Coast’s newly homeless are people who were able
to survive on the margins - until those margins moved.
For years, Stanley Timmings, 62, and his 61-year-old girlfriend, Linda Catlin, were able
to rent a room in a friend’s house on their combined disability payments.
Last spring, that friend died of colon cancer and the couple was thrust on Seattle’s
streets.
Timmings used their last savings to buy a used RV for $300 and spent another $300 to
register it. They bought a car from a junk yard for $275.
Page 41 of 289

Now, the couple parks the RV near a small regional airport and uses the car to get
around.
They have no running water and no propane for the cook stove. They go to the
bathroom in a bucket and dump it behind a nearby business. They shower and do
laundry at a nonprofit and buy water at a grocery depot. After four months, the stench of
human waste inside the RV is overwhelming. Every inch of space is crammed with their
belongings: jugs of laundry detergent, stacks of clothes, pots and pans, and tattered
paperback novels. They are exhausted, scared and defeated, with no solution in sight.
“Between the two of us a month, we get $1,440 in disability. We can’t find a place for
that,” he said. “Our income is (about) $17,000 ... a year. That puts us way out of the
ballpark, not even close. It might have been enough but anymore, no. It’s not.”
A new study funded by the real estate information firm Zillow and conducted by the
University of Washington found a strong link between rising housing prices and rising
homelessness numbers. A 5 percent rent increase in Los Angeles, for example, would
mean about 2,000 more homeless people there, the authors said.
Nationally, homelessness has been trending down, partly because governments and
nonprofit groups have gotten better at moving people into housing. That’s true in many
West Coast cities, too, but the flow the other direction is even faster. And on the West
Coast, shelter systems are smaller.
“If you have a disability income, you make about $9,000 a year and renting a studio in
Seattle is about $1,800 a month and so that’s twice your income,” said Margaret King,
director of housing programs for DESC, a nonprofit that works with Seattle’s homeless.
“So everybody who was just hanging on because they had cheap rent, they’re losing
that ... and they wind up outside. It’s just exploded.”
Nowhere is that more evident than California’s Silicon Valley, where high salaries and a
tight housing market have pushed rent out of reach for thousands. In ever-shifting
communities of the homeless, RVs and cars cluster by the dozens in the city where
Google built its global headquarters and just blocks from Stanford University.
Ellen Tara James-Penney, a lecturer at San Jose State University, has been sleeping
out of a car for about a decade, ever since she lost her housing while an undergraduate
at the school where she now teaches four English courses, a job that pays $28,000 a
year. Home is an old Volvo.
“I’ve basically been homeless since 2007, and I’m really tired,” she said. “Really tired.”
She actually got her start in the high tech industry, before being laid off during the tech
meltdown of the early 2000s. Like many who couldn’t find work, she went to college,
accumulating tens of thousands of dollars in student debt along the way.
Page 42 of 289

Now 54, she grades papers and prepares lesson plans in her car. Among her few
belongings is a pair of her grandmother’s fancy stiletto pumps, a reminder to herself that
“it’s not going to be like this forever.”
Increased housing costs aren’t just sweeping up low-income workers: The numbers of
homeless youth also is rising.
A recent count in Los Angeles, for example, found that those ages 18 to 24 were the
fastest-growing homeless group by age, up 64 percent, followed by those under 18. Los
Angeles and other cities have made a concerted effort to improve their tallies of
homeless youth, which likely accounts for some of the increase.
One of the reasons is the combined cost of housing and tuition, said Will Lehman, policy
supervisor at Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. A recent study by the
University of Wisconsin found that one in five Los Angeles Community College District
students is homeless, he said.
“They can pay for books, for classes but just can’t afford an apartment. They’re
choosing to prioritize going to school,” Lehman said. “They don’t choose their situation.”
___
Michael Madigan opened a new wine bar in Portland a few years ago overlooking a
ribbon of parks not far from the city’s trendy Pearl District.
Business was good until, almost overnight, dozens of homeless people showed up on
the sidewalk. A large encampment on the other side of the city had been shut down,
and its residents moved to the park at his doorstep.
“We literally turned the corner one day ... and there were 48 tents set up on this one
block that hadn’t been there the day before,” he said.
Page 43 of 289

Madigan’s business dropped 50 percent in four months and he closed his bar. There
are fewer homeless people there now, but the campers have moved to a bike path that
winds through residential neighborhoods in east Portland, prompting hundreds of
complaints about trash, noise, drug use and illegal camping.
Rachel Sterry, a naturopathic doctor, lives near that path and sometimes doesn’t feel
safe when she’s commuting by bike with her 1-year-old son. Dogs have rolled in human
feces in a local park; recent improvements she’s made to her small home are
overshadowed by the line of tents and tarps a few dozen yards from her front door, she
said.
“I have to stop and get off my bike to ask people to move their card game or their
lounge chairs or their trash out of the way when I’m just trying to get from point A to
point B,” she said. “If I were to scream or get hurt, nobody would know.”
For Seattle resident Elisabeth James, the reality check came when a homeless man
forced his way into a glass-enclosed ATM lobby with her after she swiped her card to
open the door for after-hours access. After a few nerve-wracking minutes, the man left
the lobby but stayed outside, banging on the glass. Police were too busy to respond so
James called her husband, who scared the man away and walked her home. The man,
she believes, just wanted to get out of the rain.
A neighborhood pocket park has become a flashpoint, too: When James took her 2-
year-old grandchild there, she saw people injecting heroin.
“I’m not a NIMBY person, but I just think that we can do so much more,” said James,
who founded an activist group called Speak Out Seattle last year. “I wanted to do
something that was effective, that brought frustrated people together to find solutions.
We’re spending a lot of money to house people and we’re getting a bigger problem.”
The crisis is not limited to large metropolises. In Oregon City, a suburban, working-class
town of 36,000 people, the police department this summer added a full-time position for
a homeless outreach officer after roughly half the calls concerned trash, trespassing,
human waste and illegal encampments.
The city has no overnight shelters and never had a significant homeless population until
about three years ago.
On a recent fall day, officer Mike Day tromped into a greenbelt across from a strip mall
to check on a man he recently connected with a counselor, calmed an intoxicated man
and arranged emergency care for a man who was suicidal.
“How many social workers have you met that go into the woods to follow up with the
homeless population and to help with mental health? This is a bit of a hybrid position,
certainly, and maybe it’s not exactly the role of a police officer - but it’s a creative
approach to find a solution to the problem,” he said.
Page 44 of 289

The question was, “What can we do differently? Because right now, it’s not working.”
All along the West Coast, local governments are scrambling to answer that question -
and taxpayers are footing the bill.
Voters have approved more than $8 billion in spending since 2015 on affordable
housing and other anti-homelessness programs, mostly as tax increases. Los Angeles
voters, for example, approved $1.2 billion to build 10,000 units of affordable housing
over a decade to address a ballooning homeless population that’s reached 34,000
people within city limits.
Seattle spent $61 million on homeless-related issues last year, and a recent budget
proposal would increase that to $63 million. Four years ago, the city spent $39 million
on homelessness. Sacramento has set a goal of moving 2,000 people off the streets in
the next three years and may place a housing bond before voters in 2018.
Appeals for money have angered residents who see tent encampments growing in their
cities despite more spending.
“Those are like whack-a-mole because they just sprout up and then they disappear and
then they sprout up somewhere else,” said Gretchen Taylor, who helped found the
Neighborhood Safety Alliance of Seattle in 2016.
Page 45 of 289

Seattle is initiating competitive bidding among nonprofit organizations for city dollars
going toward homelessness programs. It’s also pouring money into “rapid rehousing,” a
strategy that houses people quickly and then provides rental assistance for up to 18
months.
Like San Francisco, Seattle has started opening 24-hour, “low-barrier” shelters that offer
beds even if people are abusing drugs, have a pet or want to sleep together as a
couple. But the city’s first 24-hour shelter has only 75 beds, and turnover is extremely
low.
A team of specially trained police officers and social workers has also been visiting
homeless camps to try to place people in shelter. After repeated visits - and with 72
hours of notice - the city cleans out the camps and hauls away abandoned belongings.
These efforts are starting to yield results, although the overall number of homeless
people continues to swell.
Nearly 740 families moved into some type of shelter between October 2016 and August
2017, and 39 percent of the people contacted by the new police teams wind up
sheltered, according a recent city homeless report. That’s an improvement from a 5
percent shelter rate 18 months ago, said Sgt. Eric Zerr, who leads that effort.
But the approach has its detractors. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit
alleging the sweeps violate the constitutional protections against unreasonable search
and seizure. And a debate is raging about whether the sweeps are necessary “tough
love” or a cruel policy that criminalizes poverty in a city with a reputation for liberalism.
“When a city can’t offer housing, they should not be able to sweep that spot unless it’s
posing some sort of significant health and safety issue,” said Sara Rankin, a professor
with the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project at the Seattle University School of Law.
“If someone doesn’t have a place to go, you can’t just continue to chase them from
place to place.”
Above all, the West Coast lacks long-term, low-income housing for people like Ashley
Dibble and her 3-year-old daughter.
Dibble, 29, says she has been homeless off and on for about a year, after her exboyfriend
squandered money on his car and didn’t pay the rent for three months.
Evicted, Dibble says she lived in the back of a moving truck and with several different
friends around Seattle before winding up on the streets. She sent her toddler to live with
the girl’s paternal grandparents in Florida.
She and her new boyfriend were sleeping under tarps near Safeco Field, home of the
Seattle Mariners, when an outreach team referred them to a new shelter. Now, Dibble
talks to her daughter daily by phone and is trying to find a way back into housing so she
can bring her home.
Page 46 of 289

With an eviction on her record and little income, no one will rent to her.
“I’ve had so many doors slammed in my face, it’s ridiculous,” Dibble said, wiping away
tears.
Seattle’s DESC operates 1,200 so-called “permanent supportive housing units” -
housing for the mentally ill or severely addicted who can’t stay housed without constant
help from case managers, counselors and rehabilitation programs. The nonprofit
completes a new building every 18 months and they immediately fill; at any given time,
there are only about eight to 10 units free in the whole city - but 1,600 people qualify.
Among this population, “almost nobody’s going to get housing because there isn’t any,”
DESC’s Margaret King said. “It doesn’t really matter.”
There is so little housing, and so much despair. Nonprofit workers with decades of
experience are shocked by the surge in homeless people and in the banality of the
ways they wound up on the streets.
“It’s a sea of humanity crashing against services, and services at this point are
overwhelmed, literally overwhelmed. It’s catastrophic,” said Jeremy Lemoine, an
outreach case manager with REACH, a Seattle homeless-assistance program. “It’s a
refugee crisis right here in the States, right here under our noses.”
“I don’t mean to sound hopeless. I generate hope for a living for people - that there is a
future for them - but we need to address it now.”
Page 47 of 289

Page 48 of 289

III. The Working Poor
The working poor are working people whose incomes fall below a given poverty line
due to lack of work hours and/or low wages. Largely because they are earning such low
wages, the working poor face numerous obstacles that make it difficult for many of them
to find and keep a job, save up money, and maintain a sense of self-worth.
The official working poverty rate in the US has remained relatively static over the past
four decades, but many social scientists argue that the official rate is set too low, and
that the proportion of workers facing significant financial hardship has instead increased
over the years. Changes in the economy, especially the shift from a manufacturingbased
to a service-based economy, have resulted in the polarization of the labor
market. This means that there are more jobs at the top and the bottom of the income
spectrum, but fewer jobs in the middle.
There are a wide range of anti-poverty policies that have been shown to improve the
situation of the working poor. Research suggests that increasing welfare state
generosity is the most effective way to reduce poverty and working poverty. Other tools
available to governments are increasing minimum wages across a nation, and
absorbing educational and health care costs for children of the working poor.
Page 49 of 289

Conceptualizing Working Poverty
In the United States, the issue of working poverty was initially brought to the public's
attention during the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s). Progressive Era thinkers like
Robert Hunter, Jane Addams, and W.E.B. Du Bois saw society's unequal opportunity
structure as the root cause of poverty and working poverty, but they also saw a link
between moral factors and poverty. In his study of Philadelphia's African American
neighborhoods, W.E.B. Du Bois draws a distinction between "hardworking" poor people
who fail to escape poverty due to racial discrimination and those who are poor due to
moral deficiencies such as laziness or lack of perseverance.
After the Great Depression, the New Deal, and World War II, the United States
experienced an era of prosperity during which most workers experienced significant
gains in wages and working conditions. During this period (1930s–1950s), scholars
shifted their attention away from poverty and working poverty. However, in the late
1950s and early 1960s American scholars and policymakers began to revisit the
problem. Influential books like John Kenneth Galbraith's The Affluent Society (1958) and
Michael Harrington's The Other America (1962) reinvigorated the discussions on
poverty and working poverty in the United States.
Since the start of the War on Poverty in the 1960s, scholars and policymakers on both
ends of the political spectrum have paid an increasing amount of attention to working
poverty. One of the key ongoing debates concerns the distinction between the working
and the nonworking (unemployed) poor. Conservative scholars tend to see nonworking
poverty as a more urgent problem than working poverty because they believe that nonwork
is a moral hazard that leads to welfare dependency and laziness, whereas work,
even poorly paid work, is morally beneficial. In order to solve the problem of nonworking
poverty, some conservative scholars argue that the government must stop "coddling"
the poor with welfare benefits like AFDC/TANF.
On the other hand, liberal scholars and policymakers often argue that most working and
nonworking poor people are quite similar. Studies comparing single mothers on and off
welfare show that receiving welfare payments does not degrade a person's desire to
find a job and get off of welfare. The main difference between the working and the
nonworking poor, they argue, is that the nonworking poor have a more difficult time
overcoming basic barriers to entry into the labor market, such as arranging for
affordable childcare, finding housing near potential jobs, or arranging for transportation
to and from work. In order to help the nonworking poor gain entry into the labor market,
liberal scholars and policymakers argue that the government should provide more
housing assistance, childcare, and other kinds of aid to poor families.
Discussions about the alleviation of working poverty are also politically charged.
Conservative scholars and policymakers often attribute the prevalence of inequality and
working poverty to overregulation and overtaxation, which they claim constricts job
growth. In order to lower the rate of working poverty, conservatives advocate reducing
welfare benefits and enacting less stringent labor laws. On the other hand, many
Page 50 of 289

liberals argue that working poverty can only be solved through increased, not
decreased, government intervention. This government intervention could include
workplace reforms (such as higher minimum wages, living wage laws, job training
programs, etc.) and an increase in government transfers (such as housing, food,
childcare, and healthcare subsidies).
Absolute
Measuring Working Poverty
According to the US Department of Labor, the working poor "are persons who spent at
least 27 weeks [in the past year] in the labor force (that is, working or looking for work),
but whose incomes fell below the official poverty level." In other words, if someone
spent more than half of the past year in the labor force without earning more than the
official poverty threshold, the US Department of Labor would classify them as "working
poor." (Note: The official poverty threshold, which is set by the US Census Bureau,
varies depending on the size of a family and the age of the family members.) The US
Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates working poverty rates for all working individuals, all
families with at least one worker, and all "unrelated individuals." The individual-level
working poverty rate calculates the percentage of all workers whose incomes fall below
the poverty threshold. In 2009, the individual-level working poverty rate in the US was
7%, compared to 4.7% in 2000. The family-level working poverty rate only includes
families of two or more people who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' definition of family-level working poverty, a
Page 51 of 289

family is working poor if the combined cash income of the family falls below the poverty
threshold for a family of their size. In 2009, the family-level working poverty rate in the
US was 7.9%, compared to 5.6% in 2000. Finally, the unrelated individual working
poverty rate measures working poverty among those who do not currently live with any
family members. In 2009, 11.7% of employed unrelated individuals were poor,
compared to 7.6% in 2000.
Relative
In Europe and other non-US, high-income countries, poverty and working poverty are
defined in relative terms. A relative measure of poverty is based on a country's income
distribution rather than an absolute amount of money. Eurostat, the statistical office of
the European Union, classifies a household as poor if its income is less than 60 percent
of the country's median household income. According to Eurostat, a relative measure of
poverty is appropriate because "minimal acceptable standards usually differ between
societies according to their general level of prosperity: someone regarded as poor in a
rich developed country might be regarded as rich in a poor developing country."
When conducting cross-national research on working poverty, scholars tend to use a
relative measure of poverty. In these studies, to be classified as "working poor," a
household must satisfy the following two conditions: 1) at least one member of the
household must be "working" (which can be defined in various ways), and 2) the total
household income must be less than 60% (or 50%, or 40%) of the median income for
that country. Brady, Fullerton, and Cross's 2010 cross-national study on working poverty
in high-income countries defines a household as working poor if 1) it has at least one
employed person and 2) the total household income falls below 50% of the median
income for that country. According to this relative definition, the US's working poverty
rate was 11% in the year 2000, nearly double the rate produced by the US
government's absolute definition. For the same year, Canada's working poverty rate
was 7.8%, the UK's was 4%, and Germany's was 3.8%.
Prevalence and Trends
Poverty is often associated with joblessness, but a large proportion of poor people are
actually working or looking for work. In 2009, according to the US Census Bureau's
official definition of poverty, 8.8 million US families were below the poverty line (11.1%
of all families). Of these families, 5.19 million, or 58.9%, had at least one person who
was classified as working. In the same year, there were 11.7 million unrelated
individuals (people who do not live with family members) whose incomes fell below the
official poverty line (22% of all unrelated individuals). 3.9 million of these poor
individuals, or 33%, were part of the working poor. The cost of raising a child from birth
to age 18 for a middle-income, two-parent family averaged $226,920 last year (not
including college), according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up nearly
40% -- or more than $60,000—from 10 years ago. Just one year of spending on a child
can cost up to $13,830 in 2010, compared to $9,860 a decade ago.
Page 52 of 289

Using the US Census Bureau's definition of poverty, the working poverty rate seems to
have remained relatively stable since 1978. However, many scholars have argued that
the official poverty threshold is too low, and that real wages and working conditions
have actually declined for many workers over the past three or four decades. Social
scientists like Arne Kalleberg have found that the decline in US manufacturing and the
subsequent polarization of the labor market has led to an overall worsening of wages,
job stability, and working conditions for people with lower skill levels and less formal
education. From the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, manufacturing jobs offered many lowskilled
and medium-skilled workers stable, well-paying jobs. Due to global competition,
technological advances, and other factors, US manufacturing jobs have been
disappearing for decades. (From 1970 to 2008, the percentage of the labor force
employed in the manufacturing sector shrank from 23.4% to 9.1%.) During this period of
decline, job growth became polarized on either end of the labor market. That is, the jobs
that replaced medium-pay, low- to medium-skill manufacturing jobs were high-paying,
high-skill jobs and low-paying, low-skill jobs. Therefore, many low- to medium-skilled
workers who would have been able to work in the manufacturing sector in 1970 must
now take low-paying, precarious jobs in the service sector.
US Compared To
Europe
Other high-income
countries have also
experienced
declining
manufacturing
sectors over the past
four decades, but
most of them have
not experienced as
much labor market
polarization as the United States. Labor market polarization has been the most severe
in liberal market economies like the US, Britain, and Australia. Countries like Denmark
and France have been subject to the same economic pressures, but due to their more
"inclusive" (or "egalitarian") labor market institutions, such as centralized and solidaristic
collective bargaining and strong minimum wage laws, they have experienced less
polarization.
Cross-national studies have found that European countries' working poverty rates are
much lower than the US's. Most of this difference can be explained by the fact that
European countries' welfare states are more generous than the US's. The relationship
between generous welfare states and low rates of working poverty is elaborated upon in
the "Risk Factors" and "Anti-Poverty Policies" sections.
The following graph uses data from Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010) to show the
working poverty rates for a small sample of countries. Brady, Fullerton, and Cross
Page 53 of 289

(2010) accessed this data through the Luxembourg Income Study. This graph measures
household, rather than person-level, poverty rates. A household is coded as "poor" if its
income is less than 50% of its country's median income. This is a relative, rather than
absolute, measure of poverty. A household is classified as "working" if at least one
member of the household was employed at the time of the survey. The most important
insight contained in this graph is that the US has strikingly higher working poverty rates
than European countries.
Risk factors
There are five major categories of risk factors that increase a person's likelihood of
experiencing working poverty: sectoral factors, demographic factors, economic factors,
labor market institutions, and welfare generosity. Working poverty is a phenomenon that
affects a very wide range of people, but there are some employment sectors,
demographic groups, political factors, and economic factors that are correlated with
higher rates of working poverty than others. Sectoral and demographic factors help
explain why certain people within a given country are more likely than others to be
working poor. Political and economic factors can explain why different countries have
different working poverty rates.
Sectoral
tendencies
Working poverty is not distributed equally among employment sectors. The service
sector has the highest rate of working poverty. In fact, 13.3% of US service sector
workers found themselves below the poverty line in 2009. Examples of low-wage
service sector workers include fast-food workers, home health aids, waiters/waitresses,
and retail workers.
Page 54 of 289

Although the service sector has the highest rate of working poverty, a significant portion
of the working poor are blue-collar workers in the manufacturing, agriculture, and
construction industries.
Most manufacturing jobs used to offer generous wages and benefits, but manufacturing
job quality has declined over the years. Nowadays, many US manufacturing jobs are
located in right-to-work states, where it is nearly impossible for workers to form a union.
This means that
manufacturing employers are
able to pay lower wages and
offer fewer benefits than they
used to.
Demographic Factors
In her book, No Shame in My
Game, Katherine Newman
finds that "[t]he nation's
young, its single parents, the
poorly educated, and
minorities are more likely than
other workers to be poor"
(p. 42). These factors, in
addition to being part of a
large household, being part of
a single-earner household,
being female, and having a
part-time (instead of a fulltime)
job have been found to be important working poverty "risk factors." Immigrant
workers and self-employed workers are also more likely to be working poor than other
kinds of workers.
Economic Factors
There is a widespread assumption that economic growth leads to tighter labor markets
and higher wages. However, the evidence suggests that economic growth does not
always benefit each part of the population equally. For example, the 1980s was a period
of economic growth and prosperity in the United States, but most of the economic gains
were concentrated at the top of the income spectrum. This means that people near the
bottom of the labor market did not benefit from the economic gains of the 1980s. In fact,
many have argued that low-skilled workers experienced declining prosperity in the
1980s. Therefore, changing economic conditions do not have as large of an impact on
working poverty rates as one might expect.
Page 55 of 289

Labor Market Institutions
Labor markets can be egalitarian, efficient, or somewhere in the middle. According to
Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010), "[e]fficient labor markets typically feature flexibility,
low unemployment, and higher economic growth, and facilitate the rapid hiring and firing
of workers. Egalitarian labor markets are bolstered by strong labor market institutions,
higher wages, and greater security" (p562). The United States has an efficient labor
market, whereas most European countries have egalitarian labor markets. Each system
has its drawbacks, but the egalitarian labor market model is typically associated with
lower rates of working poverty. One tradeoff to this is that the "lowest skilled and least
employable" people are sometimes excluded from an egalitarian labor market, and must
instead rely on government aid in order to survive (p. 563). If the United States switched
from an efficient to an egalitarian labor market, it might have to increase its welfare state
generosity in order to cope with a higher unemployment rate.
Centralized wage bargaining is a key component of egalitarian labor markets. In a
country with centralized wage bargaining institutions, wages for entire industries are
negotiated at the regional or national level. This means that similar workers earn similar
wages, which reduces income inequality. Lohmann (2009) finds that countries with
centralized wage bargaining institutions have lower rates of "pre-transfer" working
poverty. The "pre-transfer" working poverty rate is the percentage of workers who fall
below the poverty threshold based on their earned wages (not counting government
transfers).
Welfare State Generosity
Cross-national studies are in agreement that the most important factor affecting working
poverty rates is welfare state generosity. A generous welfare state spends a higher
proportion of its GDP on things like unemployment insurance, social security, family
assistance, childcare subsidies, healthcare subsidies, housing subsidies, transportation
subsidies, and food subsidies. Studies on working poverty have found that these kinds
of government spending can pull a significant number of people out of poverty, even if
they earn low wages. Lohmann's 2009 study shows that welfare state generosity has a
significant impact on the "post-transfer" rate of working poverty. The "post-transfer" rate
of working poverty is the percentage of working households that fall below the poverty
threshold after government aid has been taken into account.
Different types of transfers benefit different kinds of low-wage families. Family benefits
will benefit households with children and unemployment benefits will benefit households
that include workers with significant work experience. Transfers such as old-age
benefits are unlikely to benefit low-wage households unless the elderly are living in the
same household. Sometimes, even when benefits are available, those who qualify do
not take advantage of them. Migrants in particular are less likely to take advantage of
the available benefits.
Obstacles to Uplift
Page 56 of 289

The working poor face many of the same daily life struggles as the nonworking poor, but
they also face some unique obstacles. Some studies, many of them qualitative, provide
detailed insights into the obstacles that hinder workers' ability to find jobs, keep jobs,
and make ends meet. Some of the most common struggles faced by the working poor
are finding affordable housing, arranging transportation to and from work, buying basic
necessities, arranging childcare, having unpredictable work schedules, juggling two or
more jobs, and coping with low-status work.
Housing
Working poor people who do not
have friends or relatives with whom
they can live often find themselves
unable to rent an apartment of their
own. Although the working poor are
employed at least some of the time,
they often find it difficult to save
enough money for a deposit on a
rental property. As a result, many
working poor people end up in living
situations that are actually more
costly than a month-to-month rental.
For instance, many working poor
people, especially those who are in
some kind of transitional phase, rent
rooms in week-to-week motels.
These motel rooms tend to cost
much more than a traditional rental, but they are accessible to the working poor
because they do not require a large deposit. If someone is unable or unwilling to pay for
a room in a motel, they might live in his/her car, in a homeless shelter, or on the street.
This is not a marginal phenomenon; in fact, according to the 2008 US Conference of
Mayors, one in five homeless people are currently employed.
Of course, some working poor people are able to access housing subsidies (such as a
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher) to help cover their housing expenses. However,
these housing subsidies are not available to everyone who meets the Section 8 income
specifications. In fact, less than 25% of people who qualify for a housing subsidy
receive one.
Education
The issue with education starts many times with the working poor from childhood and
follows them into their struggle for a substantial income. Children growing up in families
of the working poor are not provided the same educational opportunities as their middleclass
counterpart. In many cases the low income community is filled with school that are
Page 57 of 289

lacking necessities and support needed to form a solid education. This follows students
as they continue in education. In many cases this hinders the possibility for America's
youth to continue on to higher education. The grades and credits just are not attained in
many cases, and the lack of guidance in the schools leaves the children of the working
poor with no degree. Also, the lack of funds for continuing education causes these
children to fall behind. In many cases, their parents did not continue on into higher
education and because of this have a difficult time finding jobs with salaries that can
support a family. Today a college degree is a requirement for many jobs, and it is the
low skill jobs that usually only require a high school degree or GED. The inequality in
available education continues the vicious cycle of families entering into the working
poor.
Transportation
Given the fact that many working poor people do not own a car or cannot afford to drive
their car, where they live can significantly limit where they are able to work, and vice
versa. Given the fact that public transportation in many US cities is sparse, expensive,
or non-existent, this is a particularly salient obstacle. Some working poor people are
able to use their social networks—if they have them—to meet their transportation
needs. In a study on low-income single mothers, Edin and Lein found that single
mothers who had someone to drive them to and from work were much more likely to be
able to support themselves without relying on government aid.
Basic Necessities
Like the unemployed poor, the working poor struggle to pay for basic necessities like
food, clothing, housing, and transportation. In some cases, however, the working poor's
basic expenses can be higher than the unemployed poor's. For instance, the working
poor's clothing expenses may be higher than the unemployed poor's because they must
purchase specific clothes or uniforms for their jobs. Also, because the working poor are
spending much of their time at work, they may not have the time to prepare their own
food. In this case, they may frequently resort to eating fast food, which is less healthful
and more expensive than home-prepared food.
Childcare
Working poor parents with young children, especially single parents, face significantly
more childcare-related obstacles than other people. Often, childcare costs can exceed a
low-wage earners' income, making work, especially in a job with no potential for
advancement, an economically illogical activity. However, some single parents are able
to rely on their social networks to provide free or below-market-cost childcare. There are
also some free childcare options provided by the government, such as the Head Start
Program. However, these free options are only available during certain hours, which
may limit parents' ability to take jobs that require late-night shifts.The U.S. "average"
seems to suggest that for one toddler, in full-time day care, on weekdays, the cost is
approximately $600.00 per month. But, that figure can rise to well over $1000.00 per
Page 58 of 289

month in major metro areas, and fall to less than $350 in rural areas.The average cost
of center-based daycare in the United States is $11,666 per year ($972 a month), but
prices range from $3,582 to $18,773 a year ($300 to $1,564 monthly), according to the
National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA).
Work Schedules
Many low-wage jobs force workers to accept irregular schedules. In fact, some
employers will not hire someone unless they have "open availability," which means
being available to work any time, any day. This makes it difficult for workers to arrange
for childcare and to take on a second job. In addition, working poor people's working
hours can fluctuate wildly from one week to the next, making it difficult for them to
budget effectively and save up money.
Multiple Jobs
Many low-wage workers have to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. In
1996, 6.2 percent of the workforce held two or more full- or part-time jobs. Most of these
people held two part-time jobs or one part-time job and one full-time job, but 4% of men
and 2% of women held two full-time jobs at the same time. This can be physically
exhausting and can often lead to short and long-term health problems.
Low-Status Work
Many low-wage service sector jobs require a great deal of customer service work.
Although not all customer service jobs are low-wage or low-status, many of them are.
Page 59 of 289

Some argue that the low status nature of some jobs can have negative psychological
effects on workers, but others argue that low status workers come up with coping
mechanisms that allow them to maintain a strong sense of self-worth. One of these
coping mechanisms is called boundary work. Boundary work happens when one group
of people valorize their own social position by comparing themselves to another group,
who they perceive to be inferior in some way. For example, Newman (1999) found that
fast food workers in New York City cope with the low-status nature of their job by
comparing themselves to the unemployed, who they perceive to be even lower-status
than themselves. Thus, although the low-status nature of working poor people's jobs
may have some negative psychological effects, some, but probably not all, of these
negative effects can be counteracted through coping mechanisms such as boundary
work.
Anti-Poverty Policies
Scholars, policymakers, and others have come up with a variety of proposals for how to
reduce or eliminate working poverty. Most of these proposals are directed toward the
United States, but they might also be relevant to other countries. The remainder of the
section outlines the pros and cons of some of the most commonly proposed solutions.
Welfare State Generosity
Cross-national studies like Lohmann (2009) and Brady, Fullerton, and Cross (2010)
clearly show that countries with generous welfare states have lower levels of working
poverty than countries with less-generous welfare states, even when factors like
demography, economic performance, and labor market institutions are taken into
account. Having a generous welfare state does two key things to reduce working
poverty: it raises the minimum level of wages that people are willing to accept, and it
pulls a large portion of low-wage workers out of poverty by providing them with an array
of cash and non-cash government benefits. Many think that increasing the United
States' welfare state generosity would lower the working poverty rate. A common
critique of this proposal is that a generous welfare state would not work because it
would stagnate the economy, raise unemployment, and degrade people's work ethic.
However, as of 2011, most European countries have a lower unemployment rate than
the US. Furthermore, although Western European economies' growth rates can be
lower than the US's from time to time, their growth rates tend to be more stable,
whereas the US's tends to fluctuate relatively severely. Individual states offer financial
assistance for child care, but the aid varies widely. Most assistance is administered
through the Child Care and Development Block Grants. Check here to find the contact
information for your state. Many subsidies have strict income guidelines and are
generally for families with children under 13 (the age limit is often extended if the child
has a disability). Many subsidies permit home-based care, but some only accept a day
care center, so check the requirements. If you need to use an authorized provider, ask if
they will put you in touch with an agency that can help you find one.
Page 60 of 289

Some states distribute funds through social or health departments or agencies (like this
one in Washington State). For example, the Children's Cabinet in Nevada can refer
families to providers, help them apply for subsidies and can even help families who
want to pay a relative for care. North Carolina's Smart Start is a public/private
partnership that offers funding for child care. Check the National Women's Law Center
for each state's child care assistance policy.
Wages and Benefits
In the conclusion of her book, Nickel and Dimed (2001), Barbara Ehrenreich argues that
Americans need to pressure employers to improve worker compensation. Generally
speaking, this implies a need to strengthen the labor movement. Interestingly, crossnational
statistical studies on working poverty suggest that generous welfare states
have a larger impact on working poverty than strong labor movements. The labor
movements in various countries have accomplished this through political parties of their
own (labor parties) or strategic alliances with non-labor parties, for instance, when
striving to put a meaningful minimum wage in place. The federal government offers a
Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that's administered through workplaces.
If your job offers an FSA (also known as a Dependent Care Account), you can put aside
up to $5,000 in per-tax dollars to pay for child care expenses. If both you and your
Page 61 of 289

spouse have an FSA, the family limit is $5,000—but you could get as much as $2,000 in
tax savings if your combined contributions reach the maximum.
Education and Training
Some argue that more vocational training and active labour market policies, especially
in growth industries like healthcare and renewable energy, is the solution to working
poverty. To be sure, wider availability of vocational training could pull some people out
of working poverty, but the fact remains that the low-wage service sector is a rapidly
growing part of the US economy. Even if more nursing and clean energy jobs were
added to the economy, there would still be a huge portion of the workforce in low-wage
service sector jobs like retail, food service, and cleaning. Therefore, it seems clear that
any significant reduction in the working poverty rate will have to come from offering
higher wages and more benefits to the current, and future, population of service sector
workers.
Child Support Assurance
Given the fact that such a large proportion of working poor households are headed by a
single mother, one clear way to reduce working poverty would be to make sure that
children's fathers share the cost of child rearing. In cases where the father cannot
provide child support, scholars like Irwin Garfinkel advocate for the implementation of a
child support guarantee, whereby the government pays childcare costs if the father
cannot. Child support is not always a guarantee if the father or mother does not work.
For example, if the parent without custody is not working then the parent with custody
does not receive any child support unless the non working parent is employed at their
job longer than 90 days, excluding if the non begins to work for its a city or government.
Also, the government does not pay for childcare cost if you make more than the cut off
range (your gross, per county or state.)
Marriage
Households with two wage-earners have a significantly lower rate of working poverty
than households with only one wage-earner. Also, households with two adults, but only
one wage-earner, have lower working poverty rates than households with only one
adult. Therefore, it seems clear that having two adults in a household, especially if there
are children present, is more likely to keep a household out of poverty than having just
one adult in a household. Many scholars and policymakers have used this fact to argue
that encouraging people to get married and stay married is an effective way to reduce
working poverty (and poverty in general). However, this is easier said than done.
Research has shown that low-income people marry less often than higher-income
people because they have a more difficult time finding a partner who is employed, which
is often seen as a prerequisite for marriage. Therefore, unless the employment
Page 62 of 289

opportunity structure is improved, simply increasing the number of marriages among
low-income people would be unlikely to lower working poverty rates.
Ultimately, effective solutions to working poverty are multifaceted. Each of the
aforementioned proposals could help reduce working poverty in the United States, but
they might have a greater impact if at least a few of them were pursued simultaneously.
________
5 Myths About The Working Poor In America
September 7, 2016 Posted by Mary Babic
While many of us enjoyed a day of rest at the tail end of a steamy summer, a whole lot
of people rolled out of bed and headed into work on Labor Day. Of course, they’re the
ones most in need of a day off.
Working full-time can be tiring. Working full-time at many low-wage jobs can be
exhausting, and stressful. Surviving on low wages in the US requires strength and
stamina, perfect health, and some serious penny pinching.
Page 63 of 289

It’s time to bust some myths and pay these workers the wages, and respect, they
deserve. Then check out our map and report for more info on An agenda to give
America’s working poor a raise.
Myth #1: Most workers in low-wage jobs are young or starting out at the entry
level.
If you define a “low” wage as under $15 per hour, you’re referring to almost half the
workforce in the US.
Today 73 percent of workers earning under $15 per hour nationwide are older than 25.
Overall, 58 million workers (44 percent) earn under $15 an hour; 42 million earn under
$12 an hour. Many are parents of young children. Over 125 million people, including
over 31.5 million children, live in households with at least one worker earning under $15
an hour. That’s more than 42 percent of the children in the US. Roughly one third of
parents earning low wages are single parents.
While some workers may find ladders out of low-wage jobs, millions stay in these jobs
for their working lives. For example, the median age of the more than 1.4 million home
care aides in the US is 45; nearly half graduated high school and have had some
college education; the majority work full-time. However, with a median wage of $10.25
an hour, 54 percent live near poverty. This is one of the fastest-growing occupations in
the US, projected to increase by 26 percent in the next ten years.
For decades, US workers have faced wage stagnation and a federal minimum wage
that has not budged since Congress last raised it in 2009 certainly has not helped. For
seven years, it’s been stuck at $7.25 an hour: $290 a week, $15,000 a year. In that
time, the cost of groceries has increased 25 percent; rent has increased over 50
percent.
Myth #2: Most employers provide workers with earned sick time after a certain
tenure on the job.
Not only is this not true, in a cruel twist of fate, it has a disproportionate effect on those
who can least afford it. In the private sector, well-paid workers are much more likely to
enjoy paid sick leave than low-wage workers: 80 percent of high-wage workers have
sick time vs. 15 percent of low-wage workers.
The US is unique among developed nations in not requiring employers to provide sick
days. In fact, the law does not even protect workers from being fired if they miss work
due to illness. In a recent Oxfam survey, one in seven low-wage women workers
reported having lost a job as a result of taking a sick day.
This leaves low-wage workers gingerly walking a tightrope over a vertiginous drop, often
holding hands with young children and aging parents, praying that no one will catch a
cold, contract the flu, break a bone, or get a stomach bug. Any hitch, and they could all
Page 64 of 289

e falling toward economic catastrophe: days or weeks without pay can mean missing
rent, skimping on groceries, turning off the heat.
Myth #3: The low-wage workforce cuts across all populations: race, gender, age
While this has an element of truth, the core reality is that women and people of color do
more than their fair share of low-wage work.
The majority of low-wage workers are white, but black and Hispanic workers are far
more likely to be in low-wage jobs. More than half (53 percent) of black workers and 60
percent of Hispanic workers earn under $15 an hour. In some states, the numbers are
staggering: in North Carolina, three quarters of Hispanic workers earn under $15 an
hour.
Despite women representing less than half of the workforce (49 percent), they are well
over half (nearly 55 percent) of those earning under $12 an hour. Many low-wage
occupations (childcare workers, cashiers) are dominated by women. Even in other
occupations, however, women earn less per hour than do men.
Finally, black and Hispanic women earn the lowest median wages per hour of any
group. Hispanic women earn slightly more than half of what white men earn, roughly 54
cents to the dollar; black women make 64 cents to the dollar.
Page 65 of 289

Myth #4: Working longer and harder will pay off.
After years of hard work and long hours, some workers start the climb up the ladder to
better jobs. They may become managers of the fast food franchise, or shift supervisors
on the line in a plant. They may shift from hourly to salaried, and enjoy an increase in
benefits and flexibility.
Or not. They may find they’re working longer hours and seeing their pay actually shrink
per hour. Until the Obama administration recently raised the threshold for overtime pay,
the cap had been stuck at $23,600 since 1975. Any salaried worker making more than
that would not be compensated at “time and a half” for hours worked beyond 40 per
week. This included about 92 percent of the salaried workforce – and clearly brought
many more benefits to employers than modestly paid employees.
In May, the threshold was raised to $47,476, which impacts 12.5 million workers,
especially women and people of color. Still, some in Congress are threatening to block
implementation of the updated rule.
Myth #5: Most jobs pay a living wage.
Of the top ten occupations in the US in 2015, only two pay a median wage of over
$15.25 an hour: registered nurses and secretaries. The top three are retail sales at
$10.47, cashiers at $9.82, and food preparation and serving at $9.09.
Nationwide, more than 11 million people in these occupations alone (mostly women)
scramble to sustain families on wages that often fall well below the official federal
poverty guidelines.
Many of them find they simply cannot survive on these wages, and turn to government
programs and private charities for help. A recent study from the Economic Policy
Institute estimates that 41 million workers tap public assistance programs such as food
stamps, housing subsidies, and cash assistance. Overall, it mounts up to over $200
billion a year in taxpayer dollars.
________
Here’s The Painful Truth About What It Means To Be
‘Working Poor’ In America
By Nick Wing and Carly Schwartz
05/19/2014 08:23 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017
In a nation that has long operated on the principle that an “American Dream” is available
to anyone willing to try hard enough, the term “working poor” may seem to have a bright
Page 66 of 289

side. Sure, these individuals struggle financially, but they have jobs — the first and most
essential step toward lifting oneself out of poverty, right?
If only it were that simple.
According to 2012 Census data, more than 7 percent of American workers fell below the
federal poverty line, making less than $11,170 for a single person and $15,130 for a
couple. By some estimates, one in four private-sector jobs in the U.S. pays under $10
an hour. Last month, Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would have raised the
federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, despite overwhelming public
support for the measure.
And these numbers don’t say anything about the many Americans who earn well above
the official poverty line and still barely stay afloat. In HuffPost’s “All Work, No Pay”
series, the working poor told their own stories, painting a devastating portrait of their
day-to-day struggles.
They’re a diverse range of people: single parents, couples with and without children,
young women with graduate degrees, business owners, seniors and everyone in
between. Their financial situations, however, show many similarities. Jobs generally
provide them with the means to barely scrape by, treading paycheck-to-paycheck,
earning just enough to keep from going under, swallowing their pride sometimes to take
food stamps or visit food banks. Others are entirely out of work, tirelessly seeking
employment and relying on other means to survive.
Page 67 of 289

Through their words, we see what it’s really like to be “working poor” in America — and
just how much more it looks like rock bottom than most would imagine.
Being working poor means toiling through “pure hell” for next to nothing.
Earlier this year, 55-year-old Glenn Johnson was making about $14,000 a year — or
$7.93 an hour — at a Miami-area Burger King. He’d been in and out of the fast food
industry for more than 30 years. Recently he watched as his employer reported a 37
percent increase in its quarterly profit, while continuing to resist a minimum wage
increase that workers like Johnson have been fighting for.
Johnson described his daily routine as “pure hell.” It’s a nonstop effort to keep the store
clean and the customers and his managers — most of whom are less than half his age
— happy. “Sometimes, I get home and I’m so tired, I eat dinner, take a shower, lay
down to watch TV, and I’m going to sleep,” he said. “Next morning comes. I’m tired,
but I’m trying to make it.”
And yet still wishing you could work more.
While Johnson was far from enthusiastic about his work at Burger King, with no
computer and few immediate prospects of another job, he still wished he could clock
more hours. He said he worked about 35 hours a week, but wanted anywhere from 40
to 50, which would make it easier to pay for his $765-a-month rent, gas and any of the
things he can’t currently afford. Since Johnson first told his story, his corporate-owned
Burger King made him full-time and gave him a raise.
Deangelo Belk, a 21-year-old Wendy’s employee making $7.50 an hour, also knows the
pain of not getting enough hours to pay for the things he wants or to help him save
enough to move out of his mother’s house. He works around 10 hours a week and said
that he’s regularly ignored when he asks for more time.
Because you know you’re lucky to have a job, no matter how awful it is.
Vanessa Powell, 29, works full time in a Goodwill warehouse in Seattle for $9.25 an
hour. She holds a bachelor’s degree in English and a master’s in business
administration. But with her fiancé out of work, she’s just grateful to have a job, even
though she occasionally feels it’s “beneath” her. Even with the job, however, it’s
sometimes hard for them to get enough to eat.
“I mean, yeah, it’s dirty work and often demeaning work, but at least it’s work,”
she said. “Even though [my fiancé] only worked part time, it was still something. I make
enough to cover rent and electric, but we share a cell phone, which is why it’s kind of
hard for both of us to search for jobs.”
Page 68 of 289

But finding employment can also risk the crucial aid that helps you get by.
Helen Bechtol, 23, is a mother of two and a community college student with dreams of
graduating from the University of North Carolina Wilmington. To help pay for child care,
she took a second job, which made her ineligible for day care assistance.
Ashley Schmidtbauer said her family is “not destitute, but we barely make it month to
month.” She stays at home to raise her kids and has found there aren’t any easy
alternatives. Her husband’s income alone makes the family ineligible for day care
assistance. “To be honest, we make roughly $35,000 a year. Somehow, we make over
$10,000 more than their limits allow,” she said. “We are the in-betweeners. Not
making enough to live ‘comfortably’ — but not ‘poor’ enough to get any
assistance either. We don’t expect handouts. We just want what is best for our
family.”
Being working poor means knowing it can be expensive just to keep your job.
Joanne Van Vranken, 50, was laid off in 2011. After nearly two years of unemployment,
she landed a temporary administrative assistant position, which requires a 60-mile
round-trip commute every day. Van Vranken’s car is in desperate need of repair, but
she hasn’t had the money to fix it in years. She’s worried her car will die, which could
put her back in dire financial straits. “And I don’t have the money to buy a new one,” she
said. “But I have to do it, because we need to pay the bills.”
Janet Weatherly, 43, has almost completed her doctoral degree but can’t find
employment in her field. Instead, she’s making $11 an hour as a sales associate for a
major retailer. Her job is a 45-minute drive from her house, and a significant chunk of
her paycheck goes toward gas money. Weatherly’s parents put her car repairs on their
credit cards. She’d like to finish her dissertation, but currently can’t afford to get her
documents out of a storage unit halfway across the country, much less invest more time
in her education.
________
A Profile of the Working Poor, 2015
Bureau of Labor Statistics – April 2017
In 2015, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 43.1 million people, or 13.5
percent of the nation’s population, lived below the official poverty level. (See the
technical notes section for examples of poverty levels.) Although the poor were primarily
children and adults who had not participated in the labor force during the year, 8.6
million individuals were among the “working poor” in 2015, according to data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics; the 8.6 million figure was down from 9.5 million in 2014. The
working poor are people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force (that is, working
or looking for work) but whose incomes still fell below the official poverty level. In 2015,
the working-poor rate—the ratio of the working poor to all individuals in the labor force
Page 69 of 289

for at least 27 weeks—was 5.6 percent, 0.7 percentage point lower than the previous
year’s figure.
Following are some highlights from the 2015 data:
Full-time workers continued to be much less likely to be among the working poor
than were part-time workers. Among persons in the labor force for 27 weeks or
more, 3.4 percent of those usually employed full time were classified as working
poor, compared with 14.1 percent of part-time workers.
Women were more likely than men to be among the working poor. In addition,
Blacks and Hispanics continued to be more than twice as likely as Whites and
Asians to be among the working poor.
The likelihood of being classified as working poor diminishes as workers attain
higher levels of education. Among those with less than a high school diploma,
16.2 percent of those who were in the labor force for at least 27 weeks were
classified as working poor, compared with 1.7 percent of college graduates.
Individuals who were employed in service occupations continued to be more
likely to be among the working poor than those employed in other major
occupational groups.
Among families with at least one member in the labor force for 27 weeks or more,
those with children under 18 years old were about 5 times as likely as those
without children to live in poverty. Families maintained by women were almost
twice as likely as families maintained by men to be living below the poverty level.
Table A. Poverty status of people and primary families in the labor force for 27 weeks or more,
2007–15 (Numbers in thousands)
Characteristic 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total in the labor 146,567 147,838 147,902 146,859 147,475 148,735 149,483 150,319 152,230
force 1
In poverty 7,521 8,883 10,391 10,512 10,382 10,612 10,450 9,487 8,560
Working-poor rate 5.1 6.0 7.0 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.3 5.6
Unrelated
33,226 32,785 33,798 34,099 33,731 34,810 35,061 35,018 35,953
individuals
In poverty 2,558 3,275 3,947 3,947 3,621 3,851 4,141 3,395 3,137
Working-poor rate 7.7 10.0 11.7 11.6 10.7 11.1 11.8 9.7 8.7
Primary families 2 65,158 65,907 65,467 64,931 66,225 66,541 66,462 66,732 67,193
In poverty 4,169 4,538 5,193 5,269 5,469 5,478 5,137 5,108 4,607
Working-poor rate 6.4 6.9 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.2 7.7 7.7 6.9
1
Includes individuals in families, not shown separately.
2
Primary families with at least one member in the labor force for more than half the year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(ASEC).
This report presents data on the relationship between labor force activity and poverty
status in 2015 for workers and their families. These data were collected in the 2016
Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey. (For a
detailed description of the source of the data and an explanation of the concepts and
definitions used in the report, see the technical notes.
Page 70 of 289

The specific income thresholds used to determine people’s poverty status vary,
depending on whether the individuals are living with family members or are living alone
or with nonrelatives. For family members, the poverty threshold is determined by their
family’s total income; for individuals not living in families, their personal income is used
as the determinant.
Demographic Characteristics
Among those who were in the labor force for 27 weeks or more in 2015, the number of
women classified as working poor (4.5 million) was higher than that of men (4.1 million).
The working-poor rate also continued to be higher for women (6.3 percent) than for men
(5.0 percent). The working-poor rates for both women and men were down from a year
earlier.
Blacks and Hispanics were more than twice as likely as Whites and Asians to be among
the working poor. In 2015, the working-poor rates of Blacks and Hispanics were 11.2
percent and 10.1 percent, respectively, compared with 4.8 percent for Whites and 4.1
percent for Asians.
Page 71 of 289

Among Whites and Blacks, the working-poor rate was higher for women than for men.
The rates for White women and White men who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor
force were 5.2 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively. The rate for Black women was
13.3 percent, compared with 8.8 percent for Black men. Among Asians and Hispanics,
the rates for women and men were little different from each other.
Young workers are more likely to be poor than are workers in older age groups, in part
because earnings are lower for young workers and the unemployment rate for young
workers is higher. Among youths who were in the labor force for 27 weeks or more, 10.8
percent of 16- to 19-year-olds and 12.2 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds were living in
poverty in 2015. Those rates were considerably higher than the rates for workers ages
25 to 34 (6.6 percent) and 35 to 44 (6.4 percent). Workers ages 45 to 54, 55 to 64, and
65 and older had lower working-poor rates—3.7 percent, 3.4 percent, and 1.6 percent,
respectively—than did the younger age groups.
Educational Attainment
Achieving higher levels of education reduces the incidence of living in poverty.
Individuals who complete more years of education usually have greater access to
Page 72 of 289

higher paying jobs—such as management, professional, and related occupations—than
those with fewer years of education. Of all the people in the labor force for 27 weeks or
more in 2015, those with less than a high school diploma had a higher working-poor
rate (16.2 percent) than did high school graduates with no college (7.6 percent).
Workers with an associate’s degree and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher had
the lowest working-poor rates (3.8 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively). In 2015, at all
levels of educational attainment, except for bachelor’s degree or higher, women were
more likely than men to be among the working poor. (Among those with a bachelor’s
degree or higher, men and women were equally likely to be classified as working poor.)
Blacks and Hispanics generally were more likely to be among the working poor than
were Whites and Asians with the same educational attainment.
Occupation
The likelihood of being among the
working poor varies widely by
occupation. Workers in occupations
requiring higher education and
characterized by relatively high
earnings—such as management,
professional, and related occupations—
were least likely to be classified as
working poor. For example, 1.8 percent
of those in management, professional,
and related occupations were among the working poor in 2015. By contrast, individuals
employed in occupations that typically do not require high levels of education and that
are characterized by relatively low earnings were more likely to be among the working
poor. For instance, 11.6 percent of service workers who were in the labor force for at
least 27 weeks were classified as working poor in 2015. Indeed, service occupations,
with 3.0 million working poor, accounted for 38 percent of all those classified as working
poor. Among those employed in natural resources, construction, and maintenance
occupations, 6.9 percent were classified as working poor. Within this occupation group,
14.1 percent of workers in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations were among the
working poor.
Families
In 2015, 4.6 million families were living below the poverty level despite having at least
one member in the labor force for half the year or more. This figure was down from 5.1
million in 2014. Among families with only one member in the labor force for at least 27
weeks in 2015, married-couple families had a lower likelihood of living below the poverty
level (8.5 percent) than did families maintained by women (23.9 percent) or by men
(14.0 percent).
Among families with at least one member in the labor force for more than half the year,
those with children in the household were much more likely to live below the poverty
Page 73 of 289

level than those without children. The proportion of families with children under age 18
that lived in poverty was 11.1 percent, compared with 2.2 percent for families without
children. Among families with children under 18, the working-poor rate for those
maintained by women (24.8 percent) was higher than that for those maintained by men
(15.3 percent). Married-couple families with children under 18 had a working-poor rate
of 6.2 percent in 2015.
Unrelated individuals
The “unrelated individuals” category includes individuals who live by themselves or with
others not related to them. Of the 36.0 million unrelated individuals who were in the
labor force for half the year or longer, 3.1 million lived below the poverty level in 2015,
down from 3.4 million a year earlier. The working-poor rate for unrelated individuals was
8.7 percent, a decrease of 1.0 percentage point from the previous year’s figure.
Within the group of unrelated individuals, teenagers continued to be the most likely to
be among the working poor. In 2015, 46.3 percent of teens who were in the labor force
for 27 weeks or more and who lived on their own or with others not related to them lived
below the poverty level. Overall, the working-poor rate for men living alone or with
nonrelatives was 8.2 percent, and the rate for women was 9.3 percent. The workingpoor
rates for unrelated individuals were 13.9 percent for Blacks, 10.7 percent for
Hispanics, 8.2 percent for Asians, and 7.7 percent for Whites.
Of the 3.1 million unrelated individuals considered to be among the working poor in
2015, about 3 out of 5 lived with others. These individuals had a much higher workingpoor
rate than individuals who lived alone. Many unrelated individuals living below the
poverty level may live with others out of necessity. By contrast, many of those who live
alone do so because they have sufficient income to support themselves. Unrelated
individuals’ poverty status, however, is determined by each person’s resources. The
pooling of resources and sharing of living expenses may permit some individuals in this
category—who are technically classified as poor—to live at a higher standard than they
would have if they lived alone.
Labor Market Problems
As noted earlier, people who usually work full time are less likely to live in poverty than
are those who work part time, yet there remains a sizable group of full-time workers who
live below the poverty threshold. Among those who participated in the labor force for 27
weeks or more and usually worked in full-time wage and salary jobs, 3.8 million, or 3.2
percent, were classified as working poor in 2015—down from 4.4 million a year earlier.
There are three major labor market problems that can hinder a worker’s ability to earn
an income that is above the poverty threshold: low earnings, periods of unemployment,
and involuntary part-time employment.
In 2015, 82 percent of the working poor who usually work full time experienced at least
one of the major labor market problems. Low earnings continued to be the most
Page 74 of 289

common problem, with 68 percent subject to low earnings, either as the only problem or
in combination with other labor market problems. About 31 percent experienced
unemployment as the main labor market problem or in conjunction with other problems.
Four percent of the working poor experience all three problems: low earnings,
unemployment, and involuntary part-time employment.
Some 685,000, or 18 percent, of the working poor who usually worked full time did not
experience any of the three primary labor market problems in 2015. Their classification
as working poor may be explained by other factors, including short-term employment,
some weeks of voluntary part-time work, or a family structure that increases the risk of
poverty.
********
Concepts and Definitions
Poverty classification. Poverty statistics presented in this report are based on definitions
developed by the Social Security Administration in 1964 and revised by federal
interagency committees in 1969 and 1981. These definitions originally were based on
the Department of Agriculture’s Economy Food Plan and reflected the different
consumption requirements of families on the basis of factors such as family size and the
number of children under 18 years of age.
The actual poverty
thresholds vary with the
makeup of the family. In
2015, the weighted average
poverty threshold for a family
of four was $24,257; for a
family of nine or more
people, the threshold was
$49,177; and for one person,
it was $12,082. Poverty
thresholds are updated each
year to reflect changes in the
Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
Thresholds do not vary
geographically.
Low Earnings. The low-earnings level, as first developed in 1987, represented the
average of the real value of the minimum wage between 1967 and 1987 for a 40-hour
workweek. The year 1967 was chosen as the base year because that was the first year
in which minimum-wage legislation covered essentially the same broad group of
workers that currently is covered. The low-earnings level has been adjusted each year
since then in accordance with the CPI-U, so the measure maintains the same real value
that it held in 1987. In 2015, the low-earnings threshold was $348.85 per week.
Page 75 of 289

Income. Data on income are limited to money income—before personal income taxes
and payroll deductions—received in the calendar year preceding the CPS supplement.
Data on income do not include the value of noncash benefits, such as food stamps,
Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, and employer-provided benefits.
Labor Force. People in the labor force are those who worked or looked for work
sometime during the calendar year. The number of weeks in the labor force is
accumulated over the entire year. The focus in this report is on people who were in the
labor force for 27 weeks or more.
Working Poor. The working poor are people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor
force (that is, working or looking for work) but whose incomes still fell below the official
poverty level.
Working-Poor Rate. This rate is the number of individuals in the labor force for at least
27 weeks whose incomes still fell below the official poverty level, as a percentage of all
people who were in the labor force for at least 27 weeks during the calendar year.
Involuntary Part-Time Workers. These are people who, during at least 1 week of the
year, worked fewer than 35 hours because of slack work or unfavorable business
conditions or because they could not find full-time work. The number of weeks of
involuntary part-time work is accumulated over the year.
Occupation. This term refers to the job in which a person worked the most weeks
during the calendar year.
Unemployed. Unemployed people are those who looked for work while not employed
or those who were on layoff from a job and were expecting to be recalled to that job.
The number of weeks unemployed is accumulated over the entire year.
Family. A family is defined as a group of two or more people residing together who are
related by birth, marriage, or adoption. The count of families used in this report includes
only primary families. A primary family consists of the reference person (the
householder) and all people living in the household who are related to the reference
person. Families are classified either as married-couple families or as those maintained
by men or women without spouses present. Family status is determined at the time of
the survey interview and, thus, may be different from that of the previous year.
Unrelated Individuals. These are people who are not living with anyone related to
them by birth, marriage, or adoption. Such individuals may live alone, reside in a
nonrelated family household, or live in group quarters with other unrelated individuals.
Related Children. Related children are children under age 18 (including sons,
daughters, stepchildren, and adopted children) of the husband, wife, or person
Page 76 of 289

maintaining the family, as well as other children related to the householder by birth,
marriage, or adoption.
Race. White, Black or African American, and Asian are categories used to describe the
race of people. People in these categories are those who selected that race group only.
Data for the two remaining race categories—American Indian and Alaska Native, and
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander—and for people who selected more than
one race category are included in totals, but are not shown separately because the
number of survey respondents is too small to develop estimates of sufficient quality for
publication. In the enumeration process, race is determined by the household
respondent.
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity. This term refers to people who identified themselves in
the CPS enumeration process as being of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ethnicity. People
whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.
Page 77 of 289

Page 78 of 289

IV. Mental Health
Mental Health
The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless Hub
People with poor mental health are more susceptible to the three main factors that can
lead to homelessness: poverty, disaffiliation, and personal vulnerability. Because they
often lack the capacity to sustain employment, they have little income. Delusional
thinking may lead them to withdraw from friends, family and other people. This loss of
support leaves them fewer coping resources in times of trouble. Mental illness can also
impair a person’s ability to be resilient and resourceful; it can cloud thinking and impair
judgment. For all these reasons, people with mental illness are at greater risk of
experiencing homelessness.
Homelessness, in turn,
amplifies poor mental
health. The stress of
experiencing
homelessness may
exacerbate previous
mental illness and
encourage anxiety, fear,
depression,
sleeplessness and
substance use. The
needs of people
experiencing
homelessness with
mental illnesses are
similar to those without
mental illnesses: physical
safety, education,
transportation, affordable
housing, and affordable
medical/dental treatment.
When providing care to
those experiencing
homelessness, it is
essential to create a nonthreatening
and supportive atmosphere, address basic needs (e.g. food and shelter),
and provide accessible care.
People with mental illness experience homelessness for longer periods of time and
Page 79 of 289

have less contact with family and friends. In general, 30-35% of those experiencing
homelessness, and up to 75% of women experiencing homelessness, have mental
illnesses. 20-25% of people experiencing homelessness suffer from concurrent
disorders (severe mental illness and addictions). People who haves severe mental
illnesses over-represent those experiencing homelessness, as they are often released
from hospitals and jails without proper community supports in place.
Community-based mental health services play an important role. Homelessness could
be drastically reduced if people with severe mental illness were able to access
supportive housing as well as other necessary community supports.
They encounter more barriers to employment and tend to be in poorer health than other
people experiencing homelessness. Housing outreach services that provide a safe
place to live are a vital component of stabilizing the illness and helping individuals on
their journey to recovery.
________
Mental Illness and Homelessness Are Connected;
But not how you might think
By Gale Holland
Aug 07, 2017 | 5:00 AM
Even as Los Angeles starts a $1.2-billion homeless housing construction program,
residents from Temple City to Venice are fighting to keep homeless projects out of their
neighborhoods.
But since 1995, chronically homeless mentally ill people — a widely shunned subgroup
— have been living in Santa Monica’s Step Up on Second apartments, a block from the
tourist-friendly Third Street Promenade and close enough to the beach to feel the salt
air.
“Look around. It’s here,” Rep. Timothy F. Murphy (R-Pa.) said during a recent visit,
describing why he sees Step Up’s residential programs as a national model.
Murphy, author of a major 2016 mental health reform bill, was in Santa Monica to tour
three of Step Up’s permanent supportive housing buildings, which offer apartments and
counseling, case management and substance abuse treatment to 267 formerly
homeless people with mental health issues.
During the visit, The Times interviewed Step Up Executive Director Tod Lipka, staff
members and residents. Dennis Culhane, University of Pennsylvania professor and
homelessness researcher, and Andrew Sperling, legislative advocacy director for the
National Alliance on Mental Illness, were interviewed later.
Page 80 of 289

Below are their edited responses to common questions about mental illness and
homelessness:
Are most homeless people mentally ill?
A relatively small percentage of all homeless people nationwide — 13% to 15% — are
mentally ill, but their symptoms — paranoia and delusions — draw attention and
mislead others into thinking their numbers are greater, Culhane said.
However, Los Angeles’ homeless population skews heavily to single adults who have
lived in the streets a year or longer — a subgroup with a high incidence of mental health
issues. Local authorities estimate that 30% of the county’s homeless people have
serious mental illness.
Does chronic homelessness cause mental illness, or is it the other way around?
Lipka said employees at his agency don’t see people developing serious mental illness
by virtue of their homelessness. But “I do believe long-term isolation can lead to mental
illness,” said Steve Elam, Step Up lead life skills coordinator.
Culhane said severely mentally ill people sometimes get treatment and aid that prevents
them from becoming homeless.
How many homeless people are physically or mentally disabled?
Page 81 of 289

Culhane said half the country’s homeless people have a physical or mental disability, or
both. But they don’t necessarily qualify for federal disability payments, which in any
case are too low — about $800 a month — to cover rent, utilities and other needs, even
with food stamps tacked on, he added. Welfare reform in 1996 made it difficult for
people whose impairment stems largely from substance abuse disorders to receive
federal disability aid, Culhane said.
“Instead of looking at individuals and their biographies and conditions, the question is
why is the disability system failing?” Culhane said.
Is mental illness the result of genetics and brain chemistry alone, or does trauma
play a role?
“We’re still figuring that one out,” Sperling said. A strong case has been made for a
genetic role in schizophrenia, but physiological and biological brain development,
environmental stressors and childhood trauma are also thought to influence mental
health.
“I grew up in Jordan Downs and Watts, I’ve seen a lot and I’ve been through two riots,”
said Step Up resident Marvin Duckworth, 57. “My sense of hope and faith is not that
strong.”
How many mentally ill homeless people have issues with alcohol and drug abuse,
and does drug addiction cause mental illness?
About half of the homeless people with severe mental illness also have problems with
alcohol or drugs, Culhane said. Lipka put the percentage of his agency’s clients even
higher — 60% to 70% — but he and the other experts said drug use does not cause
severe mental illness. Rather, homeless people with untreated mental illness selfmedicate
to relieve symptoms, Lipka said.
I grew up in Jordan Downs and Watts, I’ve seen a lot and I’ve been through two riots.
My sense of hope and faith is not that strong.
— Marvin Duckworth
What is the role of prescribed medication in treating mentally ill homeless
people? Doesn’t it turn them all into zombies?
Medication relieves symptoms, but it “doesn’t create purpose or positive meaning in
your life, even if you have stabilized with housing,” Lipka said.
Paula Boutte, Step Up’s Santa Monica program manager, said side effects affect people
differently and medications and dosages often have to be adjusted over time. “If you
experience drowsiness and can’t get up, it’s not quality of life,” Boutte said.
Page 82 of 289

What about forced medication or other treatment for the most severely mentally
ill homeless people?
For the vast majority of homeless people, forcing them to do anything is a mistake,
Lipka said.
Sperling said Laura’s Law — which authorizes court-ordered mental health treatment for
those with serious illness and a recent history of repeated violence, criminal activity or
hospitalizations — addresses some cases. But for the 2% to 3% of homeless people so
symptomatic that “nothing else works, we may need more options,” Lipka said.
Why do people who grow up in foster care or state custody end up homeless?
Children separated from their parents at an early age often suffer anxiety and
depression, Sperling said. Lipka said growing up without stable relationships makes it
difficult to learn life skills. After years of living in group homes, “the only thing I knew
how to do was to shave and take a shower,” said Step Up resident Theo Robin, 45.
Most young adults need help from family to go out on their own, and homeless youths
are no exception. California’s recent law extending the cutoff for aid to foster children
from age 18 to 21 has reduced the group’s homeless rates, Culhane said.
Do some homeless people prefer to live that way?
Lipka said the vast majority of the clients his agency works with — 97% — want housing
“if the system we had to get into housing wasn’t so complicated.” Many have been
disappointed by past promises that fell through.
“Housing becomes something not in homeless people’s realm of possibility,” Lipka said.
“The system has failed them, and then we blame it on them.”
The system has failed them, and then we blame it on them.
Page 83 of 289

— Tod Lipka, Step Up On Second
Can mentally ill homeless people move on to jobs and live independently or will
they need to be subsidized forever?
For the chronically homeless in their 50s and 60s, stabilization in subsidized housing is
the most realistic outcome, Lipka said. “We could see less intensive, less costly
permanent supportive housing, but that’s difficult,” he said. “It’s either you’re in it or
you’re not.”
Homeless young adults with mental health issues do move on to school, jobs, and in
some cases, independent living.
“We have a building for transitional-age youth leaving foster care or state custody; they
have shorter tenancy, reunite with family, take computer classes and move out and live
on their own,” Lipka said.
Should the public pay for mentally ill homeless people to live near the beach
when most people can’t afford to?
Lipka said that Santa Monica, which subsidizes Step Up, recognized that its homeless
people are residents and that a vibrant city needs diversity.
Housing and support services cost less than we are spending now on police, courts,
jails and hospitals to manage homelessness, Lipka said. “Not to mention the nuisance
cost of homelessness to a community,” he said.
________
Mental Illness and Homelessness
Tanya J. Peterson
Mental illness and homelessness can be interrelated. In "The Homeless Mentally Ill," an
article appearing in the Harvard Mental Health Letter (2005), the author asserts that
nearly a third of all homeless people in the U.S. have a serious mental illness like
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. This means that of the estimated
600,000 homeless people in the U.S. in 2005, approximately 200,000 were seriously
mentally ill. The mentally ill homeless numbered nearly a quarter million people.
Homelessness and Mental Illness: Does One Cause the Other?
The association between mental illness and homelessness isn't quite a cause-andeffect
relationship. There are so many factors at work in both mental illness and
homelessness, not to mention the two of them together, to say that one unequivocally
causes the other.
Page 84 of 289

There most definitely is a relationship between mental illness and homelessness,
though, and each one does contribute to the other in a circular fashion. Without help,
the mutual contribution can spin out of control.
Mental illness can contribute to homelessness when symptoms become so severe that
the person can't function. For example, he or she might be so disorganized as to be
unable to maintain a job (and thus pay rent or make house payments). Also, specific
symptoms of mental health disorders, such as the manic state of bipolar disorder or the
psychotic symptoms and paranoia of schizophrenia (paranoia, though, isn't always
present in schizophrenia) can not only make it hard to work or care for oneself but can
also severely isolate the person when others don't know what to do.
Mental Illness and Homelessness: A Link
Homelessness can contribute to
mental illness because of the
severe distress caused by living
on the streets. Homelessness is
traumatic, and as such can lead to
PTSD. Depression, too, often
develops when people live on the
streets, as can other mental
illnesses. If someone is vulnerable
to mental illness, either from
environmental or genetic factors,
homelessness is very likely to lead
to mental illness (What Causes
Mental Illness? Genetics,
Environment, Risk Factors).
The interconnection between homelessness and mental illness is multifaceted. Many
different factors contribute to both of them, and they reflect the circular cause-and-effect
relationship between the two.
Biological risk factors increase the likelihood of both mental illness and
subsequent homelessness.
Stressors and triggers such as significant loss, experiencing trauma, abuse, and
others greatly reduce someone's ability to function and increase the risk of
homelessness.
effects of child abuse (physical, emotional, sexual as well as neglect) that carry
into adulthood substance use
psychiatric hospitalizations
Page 85 of 289

clashes with the law and time in jail (Mental Illness And Homelessness: Hose 'em
Down)
little or no access to support systems (mental health care, social support, family
support, etc.)
isolation due to prejudices, misunderstandings, and mistreatment (Mental Illness
Myths And The Damage They Cause)
government policies and insurance policies that make accessing mental health
care difficult for many and impossible for some; without help and treatment,
mental illness symptoms worsen and the risk of homelessness further increases.
While each of these contributing factors can lead to or exacerbate existing mental
illness as well as result in homelessness, it's unlikely that any single item will create
mental illness and/or homelessness. Instead, it's the interplay of all, or at least several,
of them that plays a part in the development of both mental illness and homelessness.
Support for Mentally Ill Homeless
Despite the fact that it can be difficult to access, there is help available because
homelessness and mental illness shouldn't have to coexist.
outreach: in many cities, organizations have people who hit the streets and meet
the homeless where they are, and they provide information to help connect the
mentally ill homeless to resources
social security provided by the government (this requires an address, and some
shelters allow people to pick up their mail there, the post office may allow
homeless individuals to pick up mail there, or the homeless person may use the
address of someone they know)
shelters
temporary housing; the Department of Housing and Urban Development has a
list of online resources by state to help people locate temporary housing
agencies.
The key to ending the cycle of mental illness and homelessness is treatment for mental
illness (How to Find Mental Health Services in Your Area). Without treatment and
support, people with mental illness won't be able to remain in housing once they receive
it. Not just that, but like all human beings, the homeless mentally ill deserve to have
their basic needs met, and beyond that, create wellbeing.
________
Page 86 of 289

Mental Illness and Homelessness: Facts and Figures
By Mingu Kim '18 | Staff Writer
Posted on July 31, 2017
Homelessness is a serious problem in the United States – an extensive study by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development showed that over 500,000 people
are homeless on any given night. This number has been steadily increasing since the
1970s, with homelessness becoming prevalent not only in major cities but also in
smaller towns. Mental illness affects a significant proportion of the homeless population.
A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that approximately 6% of
Americans are severely mentally ill, compared to the 20-25% of the homeless
population that suffers from severe mental illness. Furthermore, 45% of the homeless
population shows history of mental illness diagnoses.
Mental illness is also often cited as a major cause of homelessness, illustrating a
causative relationship that extends beyond mere correlation. Unsurprisingly, mental
illnesses can strain relationships with others, disrupt capabilities of self-care, and
interrupt the routine of a daily job, which are all factors that can lead to homelessness.
Also, people who are homeless and suffer from mental illness are more prone to
problems in physical health due to neglect of self-care, leading to prevalence of
respiratory infections, HIV, and substance abuse. Studies show that psychotic homeless
Page 87 of 289

individuals have a higher chance of being physically assaulted. A study in Baltimore
showed that nearly one-third of homeless women had been raped.
Unfortunately, because of the increase in factors such as substance abuse, mentally ill,
homeless individuals are more likely to be incarcerated. In fact, every single state in the
United States arrests more mentally ill people than it hospitalizes. In one report, it was
found that 17.3% of prison inmates with severe mental illness were homeless prior to
being arrested and 40% were homeless at one point in their lives, compared to 6% of
undiagnosed inmates. Homelessness and incarceration increases the risk of each other
through a positive feedback loop, causing a cycle of hardship and uncertainty. This
cycle that these individuals face between living on the streets and in prison causes
emotional, financial, and physical stress for their families and the community at large.
Therefore, mental health programs should provide plans for both treatment and
housing. It has been shown that both treatment without housing and housing without
treatment are ineffective for homeless individuals with mental illness. Services that aim
to achieve serious improvement need to address both treatment and housing.
Supported housing programs in the past have offered services including treatment,
education, peer support, personal finance, and living support. These programs have
been shown to be some of the most effective, although the lack of financial support has
been crippling for efforts to help the mentally ill, homeless population. State and city
budgets have been drastically cut over the years, leaving the future of the homeless on
the street up in the air.
Page 88 of 289

V. Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing Crisis Forces U.S. Homeless Numbers
Up for First Time Since Great Recession
By Damien Sharkov on 12/6/17 at 4:36 AM
Homelessness in the United States has risen for the first time since the tail end of
the Great Recession as 553,742 people slept rough or in a shelter in a single night
earlier this year, with the West Coast facing a particularly acute problem.
The one-night count in January represented the first time since 2010 that
homelessness in the U.S. ticked up, by 0.7 percent overall but by much more in
individual cities, NPR reported. The statistic came from a government document
released by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on
Wednesday.
The increase came as a surprise as homelessness levels had been falling, having
dropped by 13 percent since 2010. Many communities are making progress on
eliminating problems such as homeless veterans, who usually push the figures
up, Ben Carson, HUD secretary, said.
Page 89 of 289

The peak in the spontaneous one-night count stems now, however, from a new
problem facing big cities—a lack of affordable housing.
“Where we’re not making great progress are in places like Los Angeles and New
York City,” Carson told NPR. “These happen to be places where the rents are
going up much faster than the incomes.”
Homelessness statistics for Los Angeles this year depict an increase of nearly 26
percent compared to last year alone. When it comes to homelessness among
veterans, the national statistics would show an encouraging drop of 3.2 percent,
were it not for Los Angeles, whose own numbers push the national average for
homeless veterans to an increase of 1.5 percent.
Major cities contributed to the overall rise, with New York’s homelessness
increasing by more than 4 percent. It is in these cities where wages have
frequently failed to keep up with housing costs. According to The Guardian,
poverty rates have returned to pre-recession levels, while median wages remain
at around $17 an hour and rents have increased.
As a whole, chronic or long-term homelessness is a growing problem, as 12
percent more people experienced it this year compared with 2016. The one
positive finding was that family homelessness was down by 5.4 percent.
Recent figures show there were 58,000 families with children living without a roof
over their heads or in shelters earlier this year. The number of unaccompanied
homeless youth and children neared 41,000.
________
Affordable Housing
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
Last updated on June 22, 2018
For many people, the gap between their current income and the cost of housing in their
community puts them at immediate risk of a housing crisis. Housing needs to be
affordable to those households with the lowest incomes who are most at risk of
homelessness, and efforts to increase access to affordable housing must be
proportional to the local need.
The Solution
The Council is working on the following strategies to increase the supply of affordable
housing for those who most need it:
Support additional rental housing subsidies through federal, state, local,
and private resources to individuals and families experiencing or most at risk of
homelessness.
Expand the supply of affordable rental homes where they are most needed,
through federal, state, and local efforts. Rental subsidies should better target
households earning significantly less than 30% of the Area Median Income.
Page 90 of 289

Improve access to federally funded housing assistance by eliminating
administrative barriers and encouraging prioritization of people experiencing or
most at risk of homelessness. Implement housing anti-discrimination and eviction
protection provisions under the Violence Against Women Act.
Encourage collaboration between public housing agencies, multifamily
housing owners, and homeless services to increase mainstream housing
opportunities for people experiencing homelessness. Promote guidance on
how public housing agencies and multifamily housing owners can adopt
admissions preferences and coordinate with homeless services organizations to
make referrals, assist with applications and lease-up, and provide supportive
services.
Increase service-enriched housing by co-locating or connecting services
with affordable housing. This could be accomplished in a wide range of ways,
and will vary by community, neighborhood, and development. Examples include
providing community space within new affordable housing to host an after-school
homework room, retrofitting vacant office space in a public housing complex for
use as an examination room for a community health nurse practitioner, providing
on-site legal clinics for survivors of domestic violence, or co-locating a community
health center or mental health service provider within an affordable housing
development.
________
A Map of America’s Homeless Problem Reveals The Best
And Worst States For Affordable Housing
Leanna Garfield
Mar. 22, 2018, 11:46 AM
An analysis maps the number of homeless people per 100,000 residents in
every US state plus Washington, DC.
According to the researchers, the number of unsheltered homeless people
is on the rise nationwide.
The data suggests that states with higher housing prices have higher rates
of homeless people. DC — a city in the middle of an affordable housing
crisis — has the highest number of homeless people per capita in the US.
It's a similar story for Hawaii, California, and New York.
Iowa and Nebraska have the fewest number of homeless Americans per
capita, and housing prices are relatively low.
________
Page 91 of 289

For decades, the US has suffered a homelessness problem with monumental economic
and human costs. At the same time, the country has also been caught in an affordable
housing crisis.
A new analysis suggests a correlation between the two epidemics exists. Looking at
2017 data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the San
Francisco-based data agency DataFace mapped the number of homeless people per
10,000 residents in every state plus Washington, DC.
As you can see below, the nation's capital has the highest number of homeless per
capita at about 110.
A map that estimates America's homeless problem. DataFace
The researchers note that there may be a connection between high housing prices and
high rates of homelessness. As of 2017, eight of the ten states with the highest rates of
homelessness (which includes Washington, DC) are among the ten most expensive
places to live. Affordable housing in many DC neighborhoods, for example, has been
scarce in recent years. Zillow estimates that the median home value in Washington is
$553,600, and the median rent price is $2,500 per month as of February 2018.
It's a similar story in Hawaii, where there are approximately 51 homeless people per
10,000 residents, and home values have increased about 6.6% over the past year. The
median home value in Hawaii is around $628,600, and the monthly median rent price is
$2,300.
Meanwhile, Iowa and Nebraska have the fewest number of homeless Americans per
capita, according to the analysis. These states also have relatively low housing prices:
about $132,600 and $157,800 respectively.
There is one major caveat to this study. Even when relying on government data, it can
be hard to find the true number of people living on the streets, especially if they move
locations or reside in hidden places. In addition, HUD makes the tallies in January,
when many homeless take refuge with family or friends during the cold weather. These
Page 92 of 289

numbers are then combined with a count of occupied shelter beds to gauge the success
of the previous year's service efforts.
In 2017, the total number of homeless Americans increased by 0.7% year-over-year.
The number of unsheltered homeless grew even more with a jump of 9% from 2016.
The affordable housing crisis is likely to endure as well. The White House's Fiscal Year
2019 budget proposal, released in February, calls for work requirements for those who
receive public housing subsidies. It would also cut funding for HUD by $8.8 billion.
________
Housing and Homelessness
as a Public Health Issue
American Public Health Association
Nov 07 2017 | Policy Number: 20178
Abstract
The United Nations declared housing to be a fundamental human right in 1991, and the
United States reduced overall homelessness by 20% between 2005 and 2013.
However, homelessness continues to be a recalcitrant public health problem in the
Page 93 of 289

United States, as those experiencing homelessness have high rates of chronic mental
and physical health conditions, co-occurring disorders, and barriers to health care and
affordable housing. Homeless individuals also overuse emergency services, leading to
higher treatment costs. Numerous evidence-based strategies are being employed to
end homelessness by increasing access to housing options and supportive services for
housing stability; examples include the Housing First model, housing subsidies for
extremely low-income families, permanent supportive housing services for those with
complex health needs, and pathways to financial stability through access to disability
income and employment support. Interventions in housing, health, and income
stabilization should be holistically integrated, allowing individuals experiencing
homelessness to find their unique path to recovery. To achieve an end to
homelessness, APHA sets forth recommendations for federal, state, and local
policymakers and agencies to work collaboratively in funding evidence-based housing
acquisition practices and supportive housing stability services, as well as supporting
future innovations in integrated services for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Relationship to Existing APHA Policy Statements
APHA Policy Statement 9718(PP): Supporting a National Priority to Eliminate
Homelessness
APHA Policy Statement 9611: Linkage of Medical Services for Low-Income
Populations with Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Other Addictions
APHA Policy Statement 9210: Homelessness as a Public Health Problem
APHA Policy Statement 9003: Health Care for Homeless Pregnant Teenagers
APHA Policy Statement 8413: Basic Needs of the Homeless and Homeless
Mentally Ill in the US
Problem Statement
The United Nations declared “the right to adequate housing” to be a fundamental
human right in 1991. Across the European Union, more than 400,000 individuals are
homeless on any given night, with an estimated 4.1 million people experiencing a
homeless episode each year (although varying definitions and methodologies make it
challenging to determine precise numbers). The United States has made significant
progress in ending homelessness since its Opening Doors plan was implemented in
2010, but it remains a recalcitrant public health problem.
The 2016 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual
Homeless Assessment Report to Congress estimated that 549,928 people experienced
homelessness on a single night in 2016, with 32% of individuals staying in unsheltered
locations. Demographically, more than 39% of individuals experiencing homelessness
self-identified as Black or African American, a significant overrepresentation relative to
the percentage in the U.S. population as a whole (13.3% in 2016). One in five people
Page 94 of 289

experiencing homelessness were Hispanic or Latino, 3% were Native American, 2%
were of Pacific Islander descent, and 1% were of Asian descent. Men represented 60%
of those counted; 40% were women, and less than 1% were transgender.
Geographically, New York, Florida, and California had the highest numbers of people
experiencing homelessness, although significant increases in the number of homeless
people were seen in rural states such as Idaho, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. The count
included 39,471 veterans, with 8% of that total accounted for by female veterans. Of all
homeless individuals, almost 121,000 were children (22% of the total), 35,686 (7%)
were unaccompanied young people 18 to 24 years of age, and more than a third were
experiencing homelessness as part of a family. It is important to note that these figures
capture a single point in time, and millions more adults and children experience
episodes of homelessness during a given year or are at risk of experiencing
homelessness as a result of financial and housing instability.
It is difficult to obtain accurate data on the prevalence of youth homelessness in the
United States; according to estimates, however. between 500,000 and 2.1 million young
people 13 to 21 years old are homeless. Homeless youths are typically defined as
unaccompanied individuals 12 years or older (up to age 17, 21, or 25) who live in
shelters, on the street, or in other unstable living conditions without family support.
Overall, homeless youths are more likely than their housed counterparts to experience
negative health outcomes, including chronic health conditions or problems such as HIV,
substance abuse, violence, and mental health issues. Such risks are a consequence of
street-entrenched lifestyles as well as early childhood traumas including family
breakdowns, discrimination, and poverty. In addition, historically marginalized groups
Page 95 of 289

are disproportionally represented in homeless youth populations. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youths represent between 30%
and 45% of the overall homeless youth population, as compared with an estimated 5%
to 10% of the overall youth population. LGBTQ homeless youths are significantly more
likely than their heterosexual homeless youth counterparts to have major depressive
episodes, posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and at least one suicide
attempt. In addition, they have increased rates of sexual and violent victimization.
Homeless youths are also three times more likely to be pregnant, to have impregnated
someone, or to already be a parent.
Many homeless youths seek health services only when peer advice and self-care are no
longer effective, and minor, treatable injuries often escalate into more severe health
problems. This problem is compounded by limited access to health care among
homeless youths, who frequently use drop-in centers that provide free, instant health
care and emergency rooms that often fail to offer the necessary level of care and are
much more expensive than the services of a primary care physician. Access to
preventative health care directly affects young people’s ability to safely and successfully
exit the streets.
Similarly, housing instability and homelessness among children and families is a
significant issue, with an estimated 2.5 million children (one in every 30) experiencing
homelessness in a given year. Child and family homelessness is likely undercounted in
national surveys, as many families “double up” with friends or relatives and may
withhold information about their housing instability to avoid stigma. Furthermore, an
estimated 51% of homeless children are younger than 6 years and may not be
accurately counted, as they do not attend school. Risk factors for family homelessness
include inadequate social support, domestic violence, a history of children being placed
in foster care, parental drug or alcohol use, parental mental illness, and racial/ethnic
minority family background. As a corollary, children who experience family
homelessness are at risk of higher stress levels, health problems, and need for pediatric
health care during and after such adverse episodes. Homeless children display mental
health symptoms requiring clinical evaluations at a rate of two to four times that of their
low-income housed peers, and they often exhibit developmental or cognitive delays.
Research indicates that 90% of mothers experiencing homelessness have been
exposed to at least one form of severe traumatic stress, and between 20% and 50% of
women cite intimate partner violence as the cause of their homelessness.
Ending homelessness is a public health issue, as those experiencing homelessness
have high rates of chronic mental and physical health conditions, co-occurring
disorders, and barriers to care, such as inability to access care when needed or comply
with prescribed medications. The correlation between disabilities and homelessness is
high, with almost 20% of individuals experiencing homelessness in 2016 reporting a
severe mental illness and 17% reporting a chronic substance use problem. Research on
personal and structural barriers in accessing treatment for co-occurring substance use
and mental health disorders indicates that individuals experiencing homelessness or
those with criminal justice involvement often have fewer treatment resources, lack
Page 96 of 289

transportation, and have more limited access to services, particularly those in rural
areas. These barriers to treatment may lead to increases in chronic conditions and may
hinder housing and income stability.
Research also indicates that individuals experiencing homelessness have a risk of
mortality that is 1.5 to 11.5 times greater than the risk in the general population.
Research across the European Union and Canada supports findings of higher mortality
rates and chronic disease loads among individuals experiencing homelessness than
among those who are housed. Living in an unsheltered or temporary location can
exacerbate conditions such as diabetes and
hepatitis C, which a study in Boston showed to be
two times and 12 times, respectively, more
prevalent in a cohort experiencing homelessness
than in the general population. Managing diabetes
requires access to clean needles and testing
supplies and refrigeration of insulin, and treating
hepatitis C depends on detailed medication
management, which can be difficult or impossible
for individuals experiencing homelessness. Along
with treatment of chronic health conditions, stable
housing is integral in preventing communicable
diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV. In
addition, food insecurity (defined as being without
access to food or not having the ability to acquire
food), as faced by many who are homeless, can further worsen mental health
outcomes.
Furthermore, individuals experiencing homelessness overuse emergency services,
leading to higher costs for treatment. Studies report that a quarter to one third of
homeless individuals are hospitalized during a given year and that these individuals
have significantly higher rates of emergency department (ED) use than the general
population. A national study of ED use showed that homeless individuals were three
times more likely than members of the non-homeless population to return to the same
ED within 3 days of an evaluation in that department and twice as likely to use an ED
within 1 week of a hospitalization. The study also revealed that homeless individuals
were more likely to be transported to the hospital via an ambulance, further increasing
treatment costs.
Research on factors predicting ED use among individuals experiencing homelessness
shows that unstable housing status and disease burden are more predictive of overuse
than insured status. A study in Toronto reported that homeless insured adults visited an
ED eight times more frequently than their low-income housed counterparts, while a
study in Boston concluded that unstable housing, mental illness, and substance use
disorders were significantly associated with frequent ED use among homeless insured
patients. These costs add up, and research estimates that maintaining a person living
on the street or in a shelter can cost between $35,000 and $150,000 annually,
Page 97 of 289

accounting for added expenses due to ED use and contact with law enforcement. As a
result, increasing housing stability and ending homelessness are critical factors in
reducing health system costs.
However, the lack of affordable housing and high rent costs are barriers to achieving
housing stability. HUD defines households with incomes 30% or more below their area
median as “extremely low income,” and in 2016 the National Low Income Housing
Coalition found that only 3.2 million affordable housing units were available for the 10.4
million extremely low-income households in the United States. Without access to
affordable housing, 75% of extremely low-income households are severely cost
burdened, paying 50% or more of their income toward housing costs. These housing
shortages have a particular impact on individuals with disabling conditions. A 2014
study showed that the national average rent for a modest one-bedroom unit exceeded
100% of monthly Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, and
the national average rent for a studio/efficiency was equivalent to 90% of monthly SSI
payments. Housing subsidies, such as HUD’s housing choice vouchers (HCVs), are
critical to assisting individuals in accessing safe, affordable housing without being too
cost burdened to meet other basic needs such as food and transportation.
Individuals with complex health needs, particularly those with severe mental illness and
co-occurring substance use disorders, often have difficulty in maintaining housing
without appropriate supportive services, even with the provision of affordable housing.
Increased access to low-barrier, permanent housing with wraparound supportive
services is essential to meeting the needs of this population. Key supportive housing
services include medical and psychiatric treatment, case management, and resources
designed to support independent living, which are often funded through Medicaid.
Income stability is critical to retaining housing for individuals who have disabling
conditions, and cash benefits and health insurance provided by Social Security disability
programs, SSI, and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) make it possible for
these individuals to access important treatment and supportive services. However,
despite high levels of disabling conditions, many individuals experiencing homelessness
never apply for benefits, and those who do have a very low chance of approval without
receiving active assistance in documenting their disabilities. Nationwide, an average of
28% of all initial SSI/SSDI applications are approved, and this figure can be as low as
10% to 15% among individuals experiencing homelessness. Denials typically result
from the Social Security Administration’s inability to contact individuals, missed
appointments, and, more generally, lack of adequate documentation. People
experiencing homelessness face many challenges when applying for disability benefits,
including inconsistent treatment, difficulty in locating medical records, lack of a stable
address or telephone number for contact with Social Security, and difficulty in
understanding complex and fragmented application processes.
Further impeding income stability is the high prevalence of unemployment (estimated to
be as high as 80% to 90%) among individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly
those with severe mental illness. Frequently cited barriers to employment include
Page 98 of 289

difficulties in obtaining psychiatric care, substance use, criminal histories, lack of child
care, and limited education. Lacking a stable address, phone, work attire, and
transportation further compounds barriers to stable employment. While day labor
positions may provide limited income for homeless individuals, particularly those with
lower educational attainment and criminal and alcohol use histories, they are not a
reliable form of income due to exploitation and inequality in the day labor market.
Increasing access to permanent, supportive employment options among individuals
experiencing homelessness is critical for income stability.
Finally, criminalization measures in effect across the United States that target activities
associated with homelessness are not only ineffective in reducing homelessness and
costly to enforce but serve as a barrier to income and housing stability. In 2016, the
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty conducted a survey of the
municipal codes in 187 cities and found that despite a shortage of housing and shelter
options, many cities are choosing to criminally punish individuals for carrying out lifesustaining
tasks such as sleeping in public, loitering, sitting or lying down in public,
sleeping in vehicles, sharing food, and panhandling. The survey results showed that
53% of cities prohibit sitting or lying down in public places, 43% prohibit sleeping in
vehicles, 76% prohibit begging in particular public places, and 9% prohibit sharing food
with people experiencing homelessness. These criminalization measures do nothing to
address the underlying causes of homelessness, as most police interventions are
temporary and result in a fine that homeless individuals are often not able to pay,
Page 99 of 289

exacerbating their financial instability. Criminalization of these measures is costly for
taxpayers to enforce, and a study in Colorado showed that six of the state’s cities spent
more than $5 million enforcing 14 anti-homelessness ordinances. Criminal records
negatively affect an individual’s access to housing, benefits, and employment, and
these barriers are not limited to homeless adults. Homeless children and youths are
also subject to liability under these ordinances, along with ordinances that apply
uniquely to them such as status offenses and truancy.
As documented above, individuals and families experiencing homelessness are more
vulnerable to health inequities and have disproportionately poor health outcomes. The
World Health Organization emphasizes that improving social determinants of health is
critical in achieving health equity within a generation. Improving the conditions of daily
life for vulnerable individuals, tackling the structural drivers of inequities (e.g., ineffective
social programs or inequitable economic opportunities), and raising public awareness of
social determinants of health are crucial to this process,[38] as are recognizing
homelessness in the United States as a public health issue, addressing barriers
hindering access to treatment and housing, and continuing to support research that
measures the effectiveness of social policies designed to end homelessness.
Recent successes in addressing homelessness demonstrate that there are available
solutions to this public health issue. From 2005 to 2013, overall homelessness
decreased by 20%, while chronic homelessness decreased by 42% and homelessness
among veterans by 24%. These reductions have been attributed, at least in part, to
concurrent dissemination and implementation of data-driven, results-oriented
approaches to housing and homelessness. These interventions vary, as does the
quality of evidence supporting them, according to differing types or characteristics of
homelessness and the unique barriers faced.
Evidence-Based Strategies to Address the Problem
Numerous evidence-based strategies are being employed to end homelessness by
increasing access to housing options and supportive services for housing stability.
Examples of these evidence-based strategies are described below.
Housing First Model: The Housing First model was developed as an alternative to the
paradigm that individuals need to achieve “housing readiness” by attaining sobriety,
complying with psychiatric treatment, and learning skills for independent living prior to
qualifying for a permanent housing placement. In contrast, the Housing First model is
based on the tenet that housing is a basic right and should be provided without
prerequisites; this harm reduction approach values consumers’ choices in terms of their
own needs and readiness for treatment or substance use reduction. While the Housing
First model encourages the provision of supportive wraparound services, its use is not
limited to permanent supportive housing, and the principles should be applied whenever
housing services are provided to individuals experiencing homelessness.
Page 100 of 289

A review of 31 studies focusing on outcomes associated with the Housing First model
showed that the model resulted in faster housing placements than traditional treatmentdependent
programs as well as increased levels of housing retention, including among
individuals with co-occurring substance dependence and mental disorders. The
increased levels of housing retention also led to decreases in costly shelter use and
fewer jail stays. In addition, several of the studies documented that participants reported
a higher perceived quality of life and sense of choice. Conversely, in another study,
individuals who had to enter interim housing and wait for an available permanent
housing placement reported worsening mental health symptoms, reduced their
engagement with service providers, and had inconsistent progress in non-housingrelated
recovery goals.
Interventions incorporating the Housing First model are not limited to urban settings.
While rural settings may have additional challenges (e.g., limited housing stock), the
Housing First principles can be equally effective. An evaluation of Housing First
interventions implemented in rural areas in Vermont demonstrated an 85% housing
retention rate over 3 years. A critical aspect of the successful implementation of this
model was landlord engagement, particularly among tenants with criminal histories or
substance abuse disorders. In a study of landlord perceptions of participating in
Housing First, many of the landlords reported seeing the social value of helping
individuals integrate into the community. These landlords indicated that they were more
willing to rent to tenants whom they would have not rented to before. Innovative landlord
engagement at the community level can result in significantly increased housing
Page 101 of 289

opportunities for people experiencing homelessness. Policies aimed at ending and
preventing homelessness should prioritize use of the Housing First model given its
positive housing, health, and economic outcomes.
Housing subsidies, including housing choice vouchers: More than 5.1 million lowincome
households in the United States receive federal rental assistance so that they
can afford housing, with funds directed to elderly citizens, people with disabilities,
veterans, and working families. Federal rental assistance is delivered through a number
of programs, including public housing, Section 8 project-based housing, U.S.
Department of Agriculture initiatives, and the HCV program. The HCV program serves
the largest number of households, 2.1 million, and allows very-low-income families,
individuals with disabilities, and the elderly to choose safe, affordable housing in the
private market. Public housing agencies (PHAs) receive HUD funding to administer the
program and pay a subsidy directly to a landlord on behalf of the family; the family is
responsible for the cost difference between the actual rent of the property and the
subsidized amount, which is typically 30% of the family’s monthly adjusted income.
Federal rental assistance allows individuals and families to exit homelessness and
greatly reduces housing instability and overcrowding. In addition, research into the
effects of vouchers on families with children indicates that voucher use cuts foster care
placements in half (as children are not removed from homes due to housing instability)
and greatly reduces the number of moves from one school to another, which in turn
improves academic performance and reduces behavioral and attention problems. By
spending less on rent, families are also better able to meet food and other basic needs
such as transportation, educational support for children, and health care. In HUD’s
Family Options Study, which evaluated the effectiveness of various types of housing
support for homeless families, researchers found substantial long-term benefits from the
use of permanent supportive housing subsidies. Families who received priority access
to these subsidies reduced their housing instability by more than half, as evidenced by
reductions in subsequent stays in shelters and places not meant for human habitation.
They also showed improvements in multiple measures of adult and child well-being and
reduced their food insecurity.
Permanent supportive housing: Permanent supportive housing is a combination of safe,
stable housing and supportive services for individuals who have serious mental
illnesses or other disabling conditions and who need additional services to remain stably
housed. It is recognized by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, HUD, and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness as an
evidence-based practice for chronically homeless individuals or those with complex
health needs. Through this model, individuals receive flexible support based on their
choices and needs, which can include case management, substance abuse or mental
health counseling, assistance in increasing their income through employment or
disability benefits, training in independent living skills, vocational services, and other
tenancy support services. These supportive services are a critical part of improving
housing stability outcomes in permanent housing programs. An example of a federal
permanent supportive housing initiative is the HUD-VASH (Veteran Affairs Supportive
Page 102 of 289

Housing) Program, which combines HCV rental assistance for homeless veterans with
case management and clinical services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA). From 2008 to 2015, more than 85,000 HUD-VASH vouchers were awarded. A
review of research on permanent supportive housing showed that this model is effective
in reducing homelessness, increasing housing stability, and reducing hospitalizations
and ED use. There are multiple types of permanent supportive housing programs that
can facilitate better health outcomes and promote housing stability, including Housing
First, harm reduction, and consumer-driven program designs.
Numerous additional studies have documented that supportive housing for chronically
homeless individuals reduces expensive ED usage. A study in Oregon revealed a 55%
reduction in Medicaid claims for individuals 1 year after they obtained housing, while
research in Chicago showed that housing and supportive services led to a 29%
reduction in hospital days and a 24% reduction in ED visits. In addition, the New York
Frequent Users Service Enhancement initiative, which provided supportive housing to
200 individuals with frequent jail and shelter stays, documented that 91% of participants
remained stably housed after 12 months, and annual total costs for crisis medical and
behavioral health care services were reduced by $7,308 per person.
The levels and types of support services offered are intentionally designed to be flexible
and adaptive to the population being housed by a given program. The variety and extent
of the service needs of tenants in permanent supportive housing must influence the
types of services provided. Funding for effective permanent supportive housing program
delivery should ensure appropriate staff-to-tenant ratios and services. Some tenant
populations (particularly those with special needs) and services are more resource
intensive than others, requiring programs to increase the proportion of costs relative to
housing subsidization and operating costs. Insufficient resources allocated to supportive
Page 103 of 289

services result in underperformance with respect to program outcomes (e.g., housing
instability, unsafe conditions for tenants and staff).
National Housing Trust Fund: The U.S. Congress established the National Housing
Trust Fund (NHTF) under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. This block
grant, administered by HUD, is intended to supplement other federal and state efforts to
provide safe, affordable housing for extremely low-income households and families
experiencing homelessness. States are allocated a minimum of $3 million per year and
use these funds to acquire or construct new affordable housing units and rehabilitate
existing units; 80% of the funding is dedicated to rental housing. The NHTF began
receiving contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2014, and HUD allocated
the first $174 million in May 2016. This federal support for increasing the number of
affordable housing units is invaluable in terms of ensuring housing stability and ending
homelessness; however, additional funding mechanisms to increase contributions to the
NHTF are necessary to ensure that states and the District of Columbia receive enough
funds to support these goals.
Increasing income support to promote housing stability: The federal strategy to end
homelessness, Opening Doors, emphasizes the need for individual economic security in
order to achieve housing stability. Programs aimed at increasing income stability and
financial independence should be integrated into housing and health interventions, as
the provision of housing alone will not be sufficient to end and prevent homelessness.
In the case of individuals with disabling conditions, increasing access to Social Security
disability benefit programs or VA disability benefits for veterans helps provide the cash
benefits and health coverage that are key for housing retention. With respect to
overcoming barriers in application processes, research indicates that comprehensive
application assistance can increase the approval rate for homeless individuals from
28% to 73%. Additional research documents that programs providing SSI/SSDI
application assistance to homeless individuals exiting the justice system report
increased housing stability and reductions in rearrests and incarcerations, thus
decreasing system costs.
Increasing income stability through employment is also critical to housing stability, and
while unemployment rates are high among individuals experiencing homelessness,
research shows that most members of this population, particularly those with severe
mental illness, want to work and are capable of working. Supportive employment
services have documented success in increasing access to and retention of competitive
employment. A 2014 study revealed that, among individuals with psychiatric disabilities,
those who received employer-provided accommodations for their disabilities worked
7.68 more hours per month and retained their job for almost 7 months longer; also, each
job accommodation individuals received reduced their risk of job termination by almost
13%. In addition, the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model, which focuses on
competitive employment, consumer preferences, rapid job search, and individualized
job support and does not require extensive pre-employment readiness or training, has
demonstrated success across 23 randomized controlled trials involving individuals with
Page 104 of 289

mental illnesses. Across these studies, an average of 60% of individuals using the IPS
model obtained competitive employment; also, these individuals retained their initial job
placement for 8 to 10 months and reported higher self-esteem and reduced mental
health service use.
Homelessness Prevention Programs: While interventions for those experiencing
literal homelessness are critical, public policy and resources should also focus on
preventing homelessness, particularly among youths, families, and veterans. Youths
exiting foster care are at high risk of homelessness due to lack of social support, poorer
health outcomes, and underemployment, and many young homeless families are led by
those who recently exited foster care. Homeless prevention programs for youths
transitioning from foster care should include increased access to mentoring,
employment and education support, and connection with permanent housing. In
addition to educational and vocational resources, supportive services for families who
are at risk of homelessness should focus on identifying and addressing developmental
delays in children, increasing access to treatment for parental substance abuse or
mental health conditions, and providing parental support. Multidisciplinary teams
working across schools, clinics, and social services are critical in identifying children
and families in need and arranging for appropriate resources.
In the case of veterans who are at risk of homelessness, the VA has dedicated more
than $1 billion in funding for homelessness prevention and rapid rehousing initiatives
Page 105 of 289

through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program. In the first four
years of the program, which began in 2012, SSVF served more than 238,000 veterans,
and 87% of those who received homelessness prevention assistance were able to
access or maintain permanent housing at the end of the assistance, which lasted 96
days on average. More than half of veterans served through SSVF have one or more
disabling conditions, and most (70%) earned less than 30% of the median income in
their area upon program entrance. The SSVF program achieves successful
homelessness prevention by providing time-limited cash assistance combined with
targeted service-intensive interventions to support access to employment and benefits.
The VA has shown that limited-cost, short-term prevention efforts can be successful in
regaining housing stability, and further research should explore the applicability of such
findings to other subpopulations.
Evaluations of programs aiming to prevent homelessness have yielded mixed results. In
New York City, one such program was shown to reduce new shelter entries by 5% to
11% on average. Shelter length of stay, while not typically a targeted outcome of
prevention programs, nevertheless does not appear to be effected by prevention efforts.
HUD’s Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program was discontinued in
2012 after demonstrating only mixed success. However, the lack of any increase in
homelessness from 2009 to 2012 during an economic recession in the United States
has been attributed to large-scale increases in prevention funding. In addition, many
lessons were learned from the implementation of that program, and these lessons have
led to a better understanding of how to generate and measure program impact. Other
countries, such as England and Germany, have documented greater success in
homeless prevention programs; however, these countries have more widely available
housing subsidies, greater access to public or social housing, and more flexible cash
assistance.
Constructive Alternatives to The Criminalization of Homelessness: Many states
and municipalities continue to pass laws that criminalize behaviors associated with
homelessness, such as sharing food and loitering. While some of these laws have been
struck down, many more are taking up costly resources to enforce and are ineffective in
reducing homelessness or the criminalized behavior they are intended to deter.
Internationally, human rights courts and national constitutional courts are increasingly
recognizing a fundamental right to housing and pursuing housing-related solutions to
these behaviors, rather than a criminal remedy. As a result, it is critical for communities
in the United States to adopt constructive alternatives to criminalizing basic lifesustaining
activities that individuals must perform in public spaces if there is no shelter
or housing available.
The housing-focused solutions detailed above are critical to reducing the behaviors that
these laws are designed to deter. Individuals and families who have a safe, permanent
place to live will no longer need to sleep in public or be targeted as loitering. However,
while pursuing housing is the ultimate goal, decriminalizing the life-sustaining behaviors
of people experiencing homelessness and recognizing their fundamental human rights
are essential. Money spent on enforcement of these laws could instead be spent on
Page 106 of 289

developing affordable housing options, reinvesting in community services for homeless
citizens, or establishing street outreach teams to increase engagement in services.
Homelessness outreach teams staffed by police officers in Houston, Minnesota, and
Milwaukee have proved successful in diverting homeless individuals away from jails
when they are in a mental health crisis, saving the criminal justice system additional
funds. Finally, many cities and states across the country have enacted a homeless bill
of rights, which is legislation that prohibits the criminalization of homelessness and
discrimination against those experiencing homelessness. These rights include the right
to move freely in public places, share food, rest, and ask for donations while being
protected from harassment from police or others.
Summary: In conclusion, there is no single strategy sufficient to completely address or
end homelessness. Interventions in housing, health, and income stabilization should be
holistically integrated, allowing individuals experiencing homelessness to find their
unique path to recovery. Further innovations and strategic interventions beyond the
currently accepted evidence-based strategies will likely be required to achieve this goal.
Such innovations will require interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration, including
coordinated, focused efforts from policymakers, governmental agencies, social services
agencies, the health care industry, and researchers.
Page 107 of 289

Opposing Arguments
Those opposing state funding for shelters, permanent housing, and social welfare
programs for the homeless often cite systemic inefficiencies and fraud. They claim that
these funds could be better used to create jobs or provide family and career counseling.
Others argue that since an individual is responsible for his or her homelessness,
providing such support is immoral because it creates a culture of dependency and
encourages free-riders. The argument that “homelessness is a choice” includes the
belief that individuals are choosing not to work, and thus to not have income for
housing, and the belief that individuals are homeless through “deviant” life choices such
as using drugs or alcohol. However, these lines of argument disregard the health and
economic factors leading to homelessness (as discussed above). Being homeless is a
complex issue covering individual adults and children, as well as two-person and singleparent
families.
Responding to homeless families raises some complex ethical issues, such as whether
it is better to keep children with parents in a homeless shelter or whether or not to return
abuse victims to potentially dangerous situations. While these concerns are valid and
could be addressed if better evidence were made available, this does not preclude the
need to provide support to families and their children in times of need. Children who
experience family homelessness are at risk of higher stress levels, health problems, and
need for pediatric health care, which also increases costs to the overall system when
interventions to address episodes of homelessness are not addressed.
In addition, there is political and philosophical opposition to prioritizing social services
for housing and homeless programs (so-called “political will”) within governmental
entities and in communities at large that contribute their taxes to such programs and
elect representatives to reflect such priorities. Under-prioritization of such services tends
to disregard the preventative and cost-saving characteristics of social services aimed at
addressing homelessness and instead focuses on opportunity cost trade-offs and a
cost-minimization approach to governance. This means that such political will fails to
recognize the costs of services already being supported to address the adverse effects
of homelessness such as health care and criminal justice system costs.
Another political solution often proffered comes in the form of exclusionary or punitive
policies tasked to law enforcement services. These policies, such as bans on
panhandling or sleeping in public, are counterproductive to the interventional objectives
of housing and homelessness agencies. However, these services have been shown to
stem from socialized reactions such as disgust or a desire for physical separation from
symbols of poverty, and they were not derived from evidence-based or outcomeoriented
solutions. Instead, these policies are studied in similar terms to the microaggression
phenomena associated with homelessness, such as dangerousness,
assumptions of substance abuse, laziness, and intellectual inferiority. Such negative
public perceptions of individuals experiencing homelessness also implicitly support and
bolster counterarguments to implementation of housing and homelessness services.
Page 108 of 289

While the HCV program provides much-needed assistance to individuals experiencing
homelessness, critics argue that waiting lists for these vouchers are extensive, with
many PHAs not accepting new applicants and many eligible voucher holders waiting 2
years for an available unit. PHAs are constrained by the amount of funds they receive
from HUD and cannot serve every household that qualifies for the program; as a result,
PHAs must ration vouchers and have wide discretion over eligibility criteria.
Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis of the program documents that participants are not
moving to areas of lower poverty, thus not fulfilling one of the program aims of
deconcentrating areas of poverty, and that almost one third of qualifying families are
returning vouchers unused. Limitations on voucher usage result from a variety of
factors, including participants not being able to afford a security deposit, lengthy wait
times for PHA inspections of properties before move-in, and unpredictable timing of
voucher availability. In addition, individual landlords have the choice of whether or not to
accept vouchers from applicants, which decreases the geographic and socioeconomic
range of sites available to those accessing the program. However, many of these
limitations can be overcome through adequately funding the HCV program to reduce
waiting lists and increasing the stability of voucher availability. In addition, programs that
foster income stability and financial independence can enable families to return
Page 109 of 289

vouchers when they are no longer needed, allowing PHAs to target voucher use toward
families with the highest needs.
Such regulatory limits to the effectiveness of housing vouchers also play a role in the
causal pathway to homelessness, along with limiting the effectiveness of interventions
to resolve it. Economic conditions such as fluctuations in wage and employment levels,
the rising costs of housing even at the lowest levels, and income or wage gaps all play a
part in driving individuals into episodes of homelessness, increasing the complexity of
the problem. Similarly, beyond such economic drivers, there are a wide range of
reasons why individuals become homeless. Families may experience homelessness as
a result of conditions in or outside of their control, such as unsafe home environments,
traumatic or violent events, natural disasters, unexpected costs that overwhelm financial
safety nets, and temporary lapses in availability for employment. These complexities
can be pointed to as a reason for programs’ inability to “end” homelessness, but they do
not eclipse support for expansion of programs that seek to solve current homelessness
or prevent future homelessness from occurring.
This issue of complex economic, systemic, and social drivers is also connected to the
notion that housing support and other homelessness services will end up being a
permanent crutch to individuals accessing them. In fact, such a model of homelessness
simultaneously supports the case that homelessness is in some ways beyond the
control of the individuals it affects, contrary to the aforementioned negative perceptions
held by political entities and members of society. If the complex web of causes of
homelessness stems even in part from factors external to individual behaviors or
characteristics, then interventions intended to either temporarily or systematically
remedy those factors cannot be dismissed outright.
Finally, the popular media often cites widespread fraud in social programs as a reason
to defund housing and income support services. Despite media portrayals of
widespread disability fraud, the Social Security Administration found in 2012 that only
1% of payments were inaccurate and that most cases of fraud are detected prior to an
individual receiving payment. Similarly, HUD found that just over 1% of families living in
public housing exceeded income limits, and the agency has taken action to encourage
PHAs to withdraw vouchers from these families and target vouchers to those with the
highest needs.
Action Steps
This policy statement represents APHA’s strong commitment to ending and preventing
homelessness. As a means of reaching this goal, APHA:
1. Calls upon federal agencies such as HUD and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, states, and local providers of housing and homelessness
services to promote programs that demonstrate adherence to the Housing First
model, prioritizing low-barrier access to housing for individuals experiencing
homelessness across all housing program types, with an emphasis on harm
Page 110 of 289

eduction approaches to housing and consumer-driven program designs and
structures.
2. Urges Congress to adequately appropriate funds for rental assistance options,
including the HCV program, to ensure that HUD and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture can meet future commitments and community needs for affordable
housing.
3. Urges Congress to identify additional funding mechanisms for the National
Housing Trust Fund to ensure that states receive adequate funding to increase
the availability of affordable housing units.
4. Urges federal, state, and local agencies funding housing and homelessness
services to expand their commitments to provide resources for permanent
supportive housing programs, rapid rehousing programs, and prevention of
homelessness appropriate to levels of unmet need, as demonstrated in federal
reports.
5. Calls upon federal, state, and local agencies funding or providing regulatory
oversight for housing and homelessness services to provide sufficient funding for
supportive services in all housing and homelessness interventions and flexible
Page 111 of 289

program budgeting to permit appropriate funds for supportive services to meet
the greater needs of high-acuity populations.
6. Urges federal, state, and local agencies funding housing and homelessness
services to adopt a “health in all policies” approach to policy decision making by
incorporating health considerations into impact estimates, evaluations, and
reporting across all sectors and policy-making or policy-guiding entities involved
with housing and homeless services.
7. Calls upon federal, state, and local agencies to identify and adopt alternative
solutions to criminalizing homelessness, including adoption of a homeless bill of
rights.
8. Urges federal, state, and local agencies funding housing and homelessness
services to support tailoring of interventions for special populations demonstrated
to be at excess risk of homelessness, particularly vulnerable while homeless, or
disparately accessing or receiving housing or homelessness services.
9. Calls upon federal, state, and local agencies to promote allocation of expanded
and new funds for services that target prevention of homelessness, including
rental assistance, outreach to schools and low-income communities, and
vocational and educational resources and supportive services for families found
to be at risk of homelessness.
10. Calls upon federal, state, and local agencies to provide comprehensive
assistance to homeless individuals with disabling conditions in applying for any
disability benefits for which they qualify.
11. Calls upon federal, state, and local agencies to promote allocation of funds and
services that provide individualized employment support and training to assist
homeless individuals in obtaining competitive employment.
12. Calls upon federal, state, and local agencies to promote regulatory opportunities
and provide technical assistance highlighting improved integration of
occupational training, mental health care, primary health care, medicolegal and
legal services, and other ancillary services into housing or homelessness
program services.
13. Urges federal, state, and local agencies to increase funding for academic and
community-based research to develop the necessary evidence base for current
interventions and evaluate the impact of new programs as they are developed,
incorporating guidance from consumer priorities and the expertise of the scientific
community.
________
Page 112 of 289

Assessing the Role of Public Housing Agencies in
Addressing Homelessness
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
PD&R Edge Online Magazine
Although the number of people in the United States who experienced homelessness
declined by more than 8 percent between 2007 and 2013, homelessness remains a
pressing problem. As many as 1.5 million people stay in emergency shelters or
transitional housing at some time over the course of a year — a number that does not
include those who require but do not receive such assistance. HUD is committed to
addressing homelessness and working toward the goals outlined in the Obama
administration’s 2010 plan Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End
Homelessness.
A recent study commissioned by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research
investigates how public housing agencies (PHAs) contribute to efforts to prevent and
end homelessness — particularly through the administration of their Housing Choice
Voucher (HCV) and public housing programs. The
research, “Study of PHAs’ Efforts to Serve People
Experiencing Homelessness,” consisted of a web-based
survey of the nearly 4,000 local PHAs (with an 80%
response rate) and a follow-up telephone survey of 120
selected PHAs. The surveys explore the extent to which
PHAs make explicit efforts to target housing assistance to
homeless households, the barriers PHAs face when
assisting people experiencing homelessness, how PHAs
interact with community partners, and how HUD can help
PHAs enhance their efforts to address homelessness.
Key Findings
The study revealed, overall, that 24 percent of PHAs,
controlling 53 percent of all assisted housing units, make
an explicit effort to target housing assistance to homeless households. For the purposes
of this study, these efforts were described in three separate categories: 1) general
preferences, which enable the PHA to purposefully order their waiting list to ensure that
housing resources reach specified populations ahead of those who may also be eligible
for housing assistance, 2) limited preferences, which function similar to a general
preference, but cap the number of vouchers or units that may be allocated to a specified
population, and 3) modification of screening, which refers to changes in screening
procedures or other policies that may serve as barriers to homeless households seeking
to access or utilize housing assistance.
Page 113 of 289

Additional key findings concern which PHA characteristics are associated with targeted
PHA efforts to serve homeless households.
PHAs are more likely to make an effort to serve homeless households if the
PHAs are large (administering 5,000 or more units), are located in metropolitan
areas or areas with large numbers of people experiencing homelessness, have
statewide jurisdictions, or participate in other local efforts to address
homelessness, such as Continuums of Care (CoCs) — which are regional
entities established to identify and coordinate emergency, transitional, and
permanent housing services for people experiencing homelessness.
PHA administration of HUD McKinney-Vento homeless assistance programs —
Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care program, and Section 8 SRO
Moderate Rehabilitation program — was found to have a statistically significant
effect on the likelihood that a PHA would use a strong general preference. More
than half of PHAs that administer these programs make a special effort to serve
people experiencing homelessness.
PHAs that administer special-purpose vouchers (SPVs) for difficult-to-house
groups such as nonelderly disabled persons are more likely to make efforts to
serve people experiencing homelessness; 45 percent of PHAs administering
SPVs make some effort to serve people experiencing homelessness compared
with 20 percent of those that do not administer SPVs.
Only 17 percent of PHAs that do not administer HUD programs targeted at
homeless households make efforts to serve persons experiencing homelessness
in their HCV and public housing programs.
Small PHAs are less likely than larger ones to have established a limited
preference for homeless households or modified screening processes, but they
are just as likely as larger PHAs to use general preferences targeted to homeless
households.
It is more common for a limited preference for homeless households to be
established within both tenant-based and project-based voucher programs than
public housing programs.
Other factors, such as the culture of a PHA or the priorities of an executive director, may
also influence a PHA’s engagement with homeless households, but these factors are
difficult to measure. In addition, various real or perceived barriers may dissuade PHAs
from engaging in efforts to serve people experiencing homelessness. The most
common barrier cited by PHAs is concern that homeless applicants may be removed
from the waiting list because they lack a fixed address and cannot be found when the
PHA is ready to make an offer of assistance. Other barriers cited by PHAs include
homeless households lacking the necessary eligibility documentation, as well as
needing housing search or landlord assistance when using HCVs.
Page 114 of 289

PHAs are serving formerly homeless households through numerous approaches. Many
PHAs forge relationships with local public and nonprofit community organizations to
identify and help persons experiencing homelessness. These community partners may
refer households to the PHA; help households prepare documentation to demonstrate
eligibility for housing assistance; or offer support services such as case management,
food assistance, or employment and vocational training.
How HUD Can Encourage Further PHA Efforts
These research findings provide a basis for understanding which types of PHAs are
currently strongly engaged in addressing homelessness, and helps shed light on
potential opportunities for PHAs that have previously not made special efforts to serve
homeless households. Based on their findings, the researchers recommend that HUD
encourage large PHAs to establish a limited preference for homeless households, and
work with their local CoC on the target population to which the limited preference should
be directed, and encourage smaller PHAs to establish a general preference for
homeless households. The researchers suggest that PHAs of all sizes would benefit
from training to better understand and implement recent HUD guidelines (PIH Notice
2013–15 (HA)) that clarify definitions of homelessness and permissible preference
policies. HUD could also encourage PHAs to learn from one another and to partner with
local groups that serve people experiencing homelessness, especially CoCs.
This study provides a point-in-time snapshot of PHA efforts to serve people
experiencing homelessness that can serve as a baseline from which to measure future
change. The findings should guide HUD in promoting best practices and advocating for
support as the Department continues to help PHAs in their work to end homelessness in
their local community.
Page 115 of 289

Page 116 of 289

VI. Public Assistance
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania eviction prevention and Homeless Assistance Program.
Families facing eviction or foreclosure in Pennsylvania can get help from the Homeless
Assistance Program. This is administered by non-profits across the state in partnership
with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. Using government grants, there
are emergency funds available for paying rent, energy bills, security deposits, and other
housing expenses. For those that are currently homeless and seeking a new home,
support is offered to them as well, including access to shelters and transitional housing.
The state tries to take a pro-active approach to tacking homelessness. Government
officials and representatives from the various non-profits listed below know it is better
for the individual, and less expensive for the state, to provide emergency help to stop
the eviction or foreclosure from occurring in the first place. So this is a key goal of HAP.
In addition to financial support, individuals will have access to ongoing case
management services. Staff from an intake site will work with clients on identifying
their needs and challenges. This will touch on a number of topics, including budgeting,
employment, and credit counseling.
The objective to solve the underlying cause of why someone became homeless in the
first place or why they are facing eviction. Another goal of the Case Management
component of Homeless Assistance Program is to provide clients with the tools and
skills they need to gain stability and end a cycle of homelessness.
While the case management approach will vary by county and agency, the many
services that may be available include, but are not limited to, home management,
budgeting, life skills, job preparation, and referral to public benefits, if needed.
Emergency rental or mortgage assistance may be offered, depending on county and
funding levels. Families facing eviction or foreclosure may qualify for help. In addition to
that, the currently homeless may be offered assistance with paying a security deposit as
Page 117 of 289

part of HAP. Regardless, all emergency assistance is very limited, and some families
may be issued a loan as part of the Homeless Assistance Program. Most of it is offered
on a first come and served basis to those that qualify.
Your county will also offer mediation and counseling with your landlord. In some case,
free legal aid may be provided in an effort to stop the eviction from occurring. Grants
that are issued from HAP may also be applied in order to move a family out of shelter
into a low income apartment in Pennsylvania. So this is where a deposit or first months
rent may be paid.
Short term shelter is for the currently homeless. This is only for those with no
permanent residence due to an eviction or foreclosure. There are also shelters in
Pennsylvania for victims of domestic violence, veterans, children, and others. Guests of
the centers will also be provided with case management services to assist with securing
employment, stability and more permanent housing.
Vouchers for motels or hotels may be distributed in some counties using HAP funds.
These will be issued when all shelters are full. They can generally be issued when the
homeless families’ health or safety is at risk, such as during cold winter weather or
when a family (such as a single mom) needs to keep their children safe. Or free
vouchers can help individuals that were just evicted and that need a place for a nigh.
Many charities may also offer emergency motel vouchers.
Those who exist the shelter may take part in the Pennsylvania Department of Public
Welfare Bridge Housing. It is the state’s name for a transitional situation. It is the next
step up from an emergency shelter to a permanent home. This service will allow income
qualified families to live in a shared facility or apartment for up to 18 months. They will
need to pay a portion of their income for rent and receive support from case managers
from the non-profit in their county. If the Bride program is not available, additional short
term transitional housing programs may be provided.
Organizations That Offer Homeless Assistance
Adams County
Courthouse, 117 Baltimore Street
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325
Phone - (717) 337-9820
Allegheny County
Bureau of Hunger and Housing Services
One Smithfield Street, Human Services Building, 2nd Floor,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2225
(412) 350-4354
Whether it is a cash grant for a security deposit, or legal aid, non-profits will try to stop
an eviction.
Page 118 of 289

Armstrong County
Community Action Agency
705 Butler Road
Kittanning, PA 16201
Telephone: (724) 548-3433
Beaver County
Community Services Program of Beaver County
1013 8th Avenue
Beaver Falls, PA 15010
(724) 847-3889
Bedford County
Center for Community Action
Address is 195 Drive In Lane
Everett, Pennsylvania 15537
(814) 643-4202
Berks County
Human Services/ Grants Coordinator, County of Berks
633 Court Street, 13th Floor
Reading, PA 19601
Main number - (610) 478-6194
Blair County
Human Services Office
423 Allegheny Street Suite 443
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648-2022
(814) 693-3112
Bradford County
Human Services
220 Main Street, Unit One
Towanda, Pennsylvania 18848
(570) 265-1761
Bucks County
Opportunity Council
Administration Building, 100 Doyle Street
Doylestown, PA 18901
(215) 345-8175
The Welfare Department runs the ESA program. This can provide financial help to stop
an eviction or homelessness as well as other support, including loans and more for
rehousing services.
Page 119 of 289

Butler County
Community Action Program
Butler, PA 16003-1208
(724) 284-5125
Cambria County
Human Services Department
Location is Central Park Complex, 110 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Johnstown, PA 15901-1831
Call the center at (814) 534-2658
Cameron County
Northern Tier Community Action Corp.
P.O. Box 389
Emporium, PA 15834
(814) 486-1161
Carbon County
County Action Committee for Human Services
267 South 2nd Street
Leighton, Pennsylvania 18235
(610) 377-6400
Centre County
Office of Adult Services
Willowbank Office Building 420 Holmes Street
Bellefonte, PA 16823
(814) 355-6768
Chester County
Departments of Community Development
Government Services Center, Suite 365, 601 Westtown Road, P.O. Box 2747
West Chester, PA 19382-4541
(610) 344-6900
Clarion County
Human Services Building
214 South 7th Avenue, Suite B
Clarion, PA 16214
Main number - (814) 226-9280
Clearfield County
Central PA Community Action, Inc.
P.O. Box 792, 207 East Cherry Street
Clearfield, PA 16830
(814) 765-1551 or (800) 822-2610
Page 120 of 289

Clinton County
Planning Commission,
232 East Main Street
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745
(570) 893-4081
Columbia County
Human Services Department, Courthouse Columbia County
P.O. Box 380,
Bloomsburg, PA 17015
(570) 389-5700
Crawford County
Human Services
18282 Technology Drive, Suite 101
Meadville, PA 16335
(814) 373-2613
Cumberland County
Aging and Community Services
401 E. Louther St., Suite 204
Carlisle, PA 17013
Number for intake is (717) 243-4691
Dauphin County
Mental Health & Mental Retardation
100 Chestnut Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Tel: (717) 780-7050
Erie County
Department of Human Services, Office of Mental Health & Mental Retardation
154 West Ninth Street
Erie, PA 16501
(814) 451-6800
Fayette County
Office of Human & Community Services, FACT Transit Center
825 Airport Road
Lemont Furnace, PA 15456
(724) 628-7433
Forest County
Courthouse, 526 Elm Street, Box 3
Page 121 of 289

Tionesta, Pennsylvania 16353
(814) 755-3537
Franklin County
Human Services
425 Franklin Farm Lane
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17202
Phone - (717) 263-5060
Fulton County
Services for Children
219 North 2nd Street
McConnellsburg, PA 17233
(717) 485-3553
Greene County
Department of Human Services
19 S. Washington Street, Ft. Jackson Bldg. 3rd Floor
Waynesburg, PA 15370
(724) 852-5276
Huntingdon County
Center for Community Action
207 Fifth Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652
(814) 643-4202 or 1 (888) 644-4202
Indiana County
Department of Human Services
300 Indian Springs Road, Suite 203, P.O. Box 187
Indiana, PA 15701
For information on rental or grant programs, dial (724) 463-8200
Jefferson County
Community Action, Inc.
105 Grace Way, Millcreek Center
Punxsutawney, PA 15767-1209
(814) 938-3302
Juniata County
Mifflin/Juniata Human Services Department
20 North Wayne Street
Lewistown, PA 17044
(717) 248-6733
Page 122 of 289

Lackawanna County
Department of Human Services
200 Adams Avenue, 6th Flr.
Scranton, PA 18503
(570) 963-6790
Other services are also available.
Lancaster County
Community Action Program
601 South Queen Street Box 599
Lancaster, PA, 17608
(717) 299-7301
Non-profits and the Department of Welfare coordinate eviction prevention and
rehousing programs. While funding is limited, help is arranged for families living in
poverty, senior citizens and others.
Lawrence County
Community Action Partnership
241 West Grant Street, P.O. Box 189
New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103
Main number - (724) 658-7258
Lebanon County
Human Services
503 Oak Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
(717) 273-9328
Lehigh County
Aging & Adult Services
17 S. 7th St.
Allentown PA 18101
Dial 610-782-3179
Homeless assistance from other non-profits in Lehigh County may be arranged too.
Whether it is a free hotel voucher for the homeless, or grants to stop an eviction, various
forms of assistance are provided by Allentown based agencies.
Luzerne County
Luzerne County Office of Human Services
111 North Pennsylvania Boulevard
Wilkes Barre, PA 18701
(570) 826-8800
Lycoming County
United Way
Page 123 of 289

1225 Clayton Avenue
Williamsport, PA 17701
(570) 323-9448
McKean County
YWCA
24 West Corydon Street
Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701
Dial (814) 368-4235 for details on the HAP - Homeless Assistance Program.
Mercer County
Shenango Valley Urban League
601 Indiana Avenue
Farrell, PA 16121
(724) 981-5310
Mifflin County
Mifflin/Juniata Human Services Department
20 North Wayne Street, Courthouse
Lewistown, PA 17044
(717) 242-5452
Monroe County Administrative Center
One Quaker Plaza, Room 204
Stroudsburg, PA 18360-2164
(570) 517-3129
Montgomery County
Community Based Services, Office of Aging & Adult Services, Montgomery County
Human Services Center
Location 1430 Dekalb Street, P.O. Box 311
Norristown, Pennsylvania 19404-0311
Dial (610) 278-3601 for information on homeless prevention.
Montour County
Director of Human Services, Human Service Building
112 Woodbine Lane, Suite 3
Danville, PA 17821
(570) 271-3028
Northhampton County
Department of Human Services, Northampton County Government Center
669 Washington Street
Easton, PA 18042-7491
(610) 559-3010
Page 124 of 289

Northumberland County Adult Services
322 North Second Street, Building B-Second Floor
Sunbury, PA 17801
(570) 495-2204
Perry County
Human Service Department
P.O. Box 436
New Bloomfield, PA 17068
(717) 582-8703
Philadelphia County and City
Office of Supportive Housing
MSB-10th Floor, 1401 JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 686-7105
Tenants that are in a crisis as well as the homeless can apply for help from local
agencies. There are a number of non-profits that may provide rental deposits, legal aid,
or other forms of homeless prevention listed above and below.
Pike County
Human Services at the Administration Building
506 Broad Street
Milford, PA 18337
Telephone: (570) 296-3494
Potter County
Human Services
P.O. Box 241, North Street
Roulette, PA 16746
Call - (814) 544-7315
Schuylkill County
Block Grant Programs
Address: 420 North Centre Street, Room 6
Pottsville, PA 17901
Dial (570) 628-1190
Somerset County
Tableland Services, Inc.
535 East Main Street
Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501
Telephone - (814) 445-9628
Page 125 of 289

Sullivan County
The Trehab Center
10 Public Avenue
P.O. Box 366
Montrose, PA 18801
(570) 278-5227
Susquehanna County
The Trehab Center
10 Public Avenue, P.O. Box 366
Montrose, PA 18801
(570) 278-5227
Tioga County
Human Services
Location is 1873 Shumway Hill Road
P.O. Box 766
Wellsboro, PA 16901
(570) 724-5766
Union County
Union-Snyder Community Action Agency
713 Bridge Street, Suite 10
Selinsgrove, PA 17870
(570) 374-0181
Venango County
Office of Economic Opportunity
1 Dale Avenue, P.O. Box 1130
Franklin, PA 16323
(814) 432-9767
Warren County
Economic Opportunity Council
1209 Pennsylvania West, P.O. Box 16365
Warren, Pennsylvania 16365
(814) 726-2400
Washington County
Homeless Services
100 West Beau Street, Suite 703
Washington, PA 15301
Main number is (724) 228-5935
Wayne County
The Trehab Center, Susquehanna / Wayne Counties
Page 126 of 289

10 Public Avenue, P.O. Box 366
Montrose, PA 18801
For information, dial (570) 278-3338
Westmoreland County
Department of Human Services
Location is 2 North Main Street, Room 303
Greensburg, PA 15601
Main phone number is (724) 830-3305
Wyoming County
Commission on Economic Opportunity, Wyoming County Division
P. O. Box 74
Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania 18657
(570) 836-4090
York County
Department of Human Services
100 West Market Street, Suite 401
York, PA 17401
Main phone - (717) 771-9347
The homeless can apply for rental or utility deposits, and families with a vacate notice
may be provided help as well. Various support services are arranged.
________
Nationwide
National Coalition for the Homeless
AZ » DIRECTORY
There are lots of great organizations working to help prevent and end homelessness
and hunger across the country. Search NCH’s Directory of Member and Advocacy
programs, or find further resources below.
National Directories and Resources:
Homeless Shelter Directory | Shelter Listings
Health Care providers | Shelters allowing pets | Women’s Shelters | Homeless
Accommodation Directory | Transitional Housing | Food Pantries | Sleep Study and
Accommodation Directory
Page 127 of 289

HUD Resources | HUD Local Offices | Homeless Continuum of Care | SAMHSA
Homelessness and Housing Resources | Federal Affordable Housing Assistance
Statewide Directories:
Connecticut | Louisiana | New Hampshire | Western Massachusetts | Washington
City Directories:
Los Angeles, CA | New Orleans | San Francisco, CA | Santa Cruz, CA | Seattle | Tampa
Bay, FL | Washington, DC
________
Assisting Homeless People – Working to End Homelessness
Volunteers of America
Over 670,000 Americans are homeless;
48 million people go hungry every night;
46.2 million Americans live in poverty.
Volunteers of America works to prevent and end homelessness through a range of
support services including eviction prevention, emergency services, transitional housing
and permanent affordable housing. Once we engage homeless individuals, including
youth and families with children, we stay with them for as long as it takes to return them
to self-sufficiency.
How We Help End Homelessness
We reach out to homeless individuals through street outreach and mobile outreach
services and once we engage with homeless individuals, youth and families with
children, we provide assistance that ranges from paying a first month’s rent to offering
permanent supportive housing so that people with disabilities can become stable and
productive members of their communities. In 2013, we helped over 83,000 homeless
individuals.
We have found that, without supportive services, housing is often not enough to end
homelessness. From helping homeless youth, to providing assistance in obtaining
disability benefits, to providing transportation, to offering intensive job training
assistance to homeless veterans, we operate a number of innovative supportive
services programs to support our efforts of ending homelessness in America.
EMERGENCY SHELTER
Page 128 of 289

While permanent housing, often coupled with supportive services, is the best way to
end homelessness, many individuals and families need short-term stabilization before
they can find housing that will meet their long term needs. That’s why Volunteers of
America, for over 100 years, has provided emergency assistance to homeless persons
in the form of homeless shelters.
DROP-IN CENTERS
Since homeless persons can be reluctant to leave the streets and accept emergency
shelter or transitional housing, we operate drop-in centers — places where homeless
youth or adults can get off the streets and find a temporary safe haven. And often, when
homeless persons begin to trust drop-in center staff, they agree to leave the streets and
enter transitional or permanent housing.
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
For a significant number of homeless Americans with mental or physical impairments,
often coupled with drug and/or alcohol use issues, long-term homelessness can only be
ended by providing permanent housing coupled with intensive supportive services.
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
Our transitional housing programs are operated with one goal in mind — to help
individuals and families obtain permanent housing as quickly as possible. Our
programs serve diverse populations — from women and children who are victims of
domestic violence to homeless veterans who have spent years living on the streets.
Page 129 of 289

Page 130 of 289

VII. Homeless Shelters
Homeless Shelters are a type of homeless service agency which provide
temporary residence for homeless individuals and families. Shelters exist to provide
residents with safety and protection from exposure to the weather while simultaneously
reducing the environmental impact on the community. They are similar to, but
distinguishable from, various types of emergency shelters, which are typically operated
for specific circumstances and populations - fleeing natural disasters or abusive social
circumstances. Extreme weather conditions create problems similar to disaster
management scenarios, and are handled with warming centers, which typically operate
for short durations during adverse weather.
Hardships of The Homeless Population
Hundreds of homeless individuals die each year from diseases, untreated medical
conditions, lack of nutrition, starvation, and freezing to death. In a mild-wintered San
Francisco in 1998, the death rate for homeless people was 58% larger than that of the
general population. In New Orleans, approximately 10,000 homeless were unaccounted
for after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Page 131 of 289

Residents of homeless shelters may also be exposed to bed bugs which have been
growing more prevalent in countries such as the United States, Canada and in
Europe. Some residents of shelters have reported sleeping in roach-infested spaces at
various shelters.
In Washington, D.C., statistics indicate that 63% of homeless people suffer from a lack
of access to regular bathing. Another 58% within the same city are unable to obtain
sufficient levels of sleep. Areas such as showers and bathrooms in shelters often have
restricted access with limited hours.
Homeless individuals also have great trouble finding storage locations for their
belongings.
Homeless individuals in the United States are subject to being arrested and held in jail
for "quality of life" violations or for public intoxication. In Hawaii, homeless people are
banned from sitting or lying on the streets.
LGBT People and Homeless Shelters
The LGBT homeless are at increased risk of violence compared to other
groups. Transgender people are also at danger of being placed into the incorrect
shelters. In some cases, transgender women can be turned away from women's
shelters. This can place their safety at risk.
Men and Homeless Shelters
In a national survey conducted in the United States the findings showed that of the
surveyed homeless, two-thirds are men and most likely to be single adults between the
ages of 25 and 54.
One out of every four men experiences domestic violence. In addition, young men who
have been abused as children are more likely to become homeless and are at risk of
becoming chronically homeless if they are not living in a permanent situation by age 24.
Women and Homeless Shelters
Women are at great risk of both homelessness and poverty because they are most
likely to bear child-rearing responsibilities and vulnerable to become victims of family
members or "intimate partners." In a survey conducted in the 2013 showed that in an
emergency shelter in Texas, women were the majority population.
Homeless women, both those with children and without, experience higher rates of
physical illness than men. They are also more likely to be hyper-vigilant and have high
levels of stress. Women seeking refuge from domestic violence are not always able to
find rooms in shelters. Some women have been turned away from homeless shelters
because shelter staff believe that turning women away will stop people from having sex
inside the shelter.
Page 132 of 289

Homeless women who are of childbearing age also face unique hygiene
issues because of menstruation. Homeless shelters have noted that
both tampons and sanitary pads "top the list of needs at shelters" because of their high
cost and because they are not donated often.
Housing First Practice
Alternative Models and Management Philosophies
The homeless shelters across the country act merely as emergency shelter systems
that can only hold a fraction of the rapidly increasing homeless population. The Housing
First practice provides an alternative to the current network of homeless shelters. The
program targets the large problem within the United States which is a lack of affordable
housing. This methodology attempts to place homeless families back into independent
living situations as quickly as possible. The Housing First practice has achieved
success from the fact that homeless families are more responsive to social services
support once when they are in their own housing. It provides crisis intervention,
affordable rental housing, and gives each family a grace period of six months to a year
of social service to allow the family to get back on their feet. The effectiveness of this
concept is that it assists homeless families in identifying their needs and recognizing the
choices they must make. From this point families can create better options for them and
plan strategies for living on their own.
Page 133 of 289

Empowerment Model
Some shelters propose "empowerment models", where instead of serving "clients", they
empower "participants". The goal is to become agents in their own futures and
destinies.
Such models tend to focus on assisting participants to access their rights and to fulfill
their responsibilities as citizens. Sometimes this includes contributing financially towards
the provision of the shelters they are residing in. In Australia, legislation requires those
residing in Government funded shelters to contribute a figure similar to 25% of their own
income, in return for support and accommodation. Consequently, many shelters in
Australia rely on participant contributions for as much as 20% of their budgets.
Religious Shelters
Another model is Dorothy's Place in Salinas, CA. It is actually a day center which
coordinates with multiple church and synagogue congregations to link up to night time
shelter opportunities. Dorothy's Place is closely affiliated with faith based community
service groups, including the Franciscan Worker and Companions of the Way Interfaith
Dharma community. They propose that they are in search of "possibilitarians", a theme
resonating with the prominent ministry of "possibility thinking" promoted by Reformed
Church of Americaminister Robert Schuller.
The Rescue Mission in Milwaukee, Minnesota is an extreme example of helping the
homeless through religion. In order to receive a free meal at the Rescue Mission,
residents must first attend a Christian prayer service.
The Salvation Army is a social support service organization that also functions as a
religious group. The programs of the Salvation Army are designed to assist women,
children, elderly men, families, and those who are battling drug addictions.
Vehicles as Shelter
Around the late 2000s, in Santa Barbara and other areas in California, groups of
recently homeless began to camp out in their cars in parking lots with the coordinated
support of a local non-profit group. These individuals and families were often unable to
afford rent or mortgage, but still had jobs, cars, insurance and other types of support
structures. In Santa Barbara, an estimated 55 individuals camped out every night in
various private and public lots, some reserved for women only. As more people began
to camp in their vehicles, California cities began to pass laws against sleeping in
vehicles, like the 2013 ordinance passed in Palo Alto. However, many of these laws in
different municipalities were later struck down in higher courts as unconstitutional, like
the Los Angeles ban which was judged by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in
2014. Some cities chose to repeal their own bans on sleeping in vehicles. In Los
Angeles in 2015, approximately 9,500 homeless have turned their cars into
Page 134 of 289

homes. In Hawaii, a Honolulu-based company is retrofitting five retired city buses into
mobile shelters which provide a place to sleep and get a shower.
Community Attitudes
Community attitude towards homeless shelters varies widely, but one study found that
older people, men, homeowners and all people making larger incomes were often
adverse to the concept of homeless shelters in general. Calgary neighborhoods
recognize the need for shelters, but many don't want to situate a shelter near their own
homes. A similar response came from residents in Oahu. In communities such as
Portland, Oregon, where the weather can be quite harsh, there is an extensive network
of supporters. These operate an informal restaurant, the "Sisters of the Road" cafe,
which supports both homeless shelter residents and also some unsheltered persons. At
the opposite end of the spectrum, jurisdictions such as Santa Barbara, California,
feature ongoing disputes in an often highly adversarial mode. Disputes have even
reached such schemes as re-arranging benches on city sidewalks to discourage
panhandlers. In another 2011 incident, an eight unit supportive housing project which
had been approved was called back onto city council agenda the following week in
order to allow approximately 35 public comments pro and con, despite the fact that the
measure had just been approved.
Page 135 of 289

There have at times been concerns raised about the transmission of diseases in the
homeless population housed in shelters, although public health professionals contend
that such concerns are inflated. In addition, a study published in 2014 conducted
in Marseille, France found that respiratory illnesses in homeless shelters were not
significantly different from the general population. In addition, during the
peak influenza months, the shelter occupants did not test positive for the flu virus and
the researchers hypothesize that being isolated from others may have been the reason
they were virus-free. However, outbreaks of tuberculosis in have been reported
occurring in shelters within three large Ohio cities in the 1990s.
A question has been raised as just how much money donated to the charities that run
the shelters actually gets to the homeless people and the required services. In many
cases, there is a large overhead in administrative costs, which compromise the money
for their homeless clients.
Internal Problems In Homeless Shelters
There is sometimes corruption and theft by the employees of a shelter as evidenced by
a 2011 investigative report by FOX 25 TV in Boston wherein a number of Boston public
shelter employees were found stealing large amounts of food over a period of time from
the shelter's kitchen for their private use and catering. Residents have reported that
personal items, such as underwear, was stolen by other residents while they were
occupied.
Shelters can become dangerously overcrowded when too many occupants are allowed
entry to the shelter.
Shelters sometimes are unable to meet state standards for occupancy, such as testing
fire sprinklers or ensuring that exits are clearly marked. In New York city, 2015, the state
withheld funding from many shelters which did not meet standards or which had poor
conditions.
Shelter employees are sometimes at risk from violence perpetrated by the residents
they are serving. In order to address problems faced by employees who are trying to
help the homeless in New York, the Department of Homeland
Security increased security at some shelters and conducted security assessments of
shelters in 2015. While many employees of shelters know that there is a risk when
working in high-crime neighborhoods or with individuals who are mentally ill, they
continue to work at homeless shelters because they feel that they are performing a
public service akin to the police or firefighters.
External Problems of Homeless Shelters
Several problems emerge when a homeless shelter is present. Homeless shelters have
been argued by some to have a negative effect on businesses. Businesses for years
have complained that they frequently witness pedestrians being stopped outside their
Page 136 of 289

stores by homeless people begging for money. Such instances have led to the creation
of local laws that prohibit "aggressive panhandling." Another problem is that it is often
difficult to decide on where a homeless shelter should be built and how to zone the area
where a shelter can be built. Neighborhoods, as well as schools, argue that homeless
shelters bring in bad elements to their surroundings. There are additionally far too many
shelters that have become nothing but housing facilities; they fail to provide job training
or education that would assist the homeless population with gaining their own housing.
Housing through homeless shelters offers no lasting solutions, just temporary ones.
Drugs and alcohol also tend to surround homeless shelters. Most shelters prohibit
residential use of illegal drugs and alcohol, but enforcement is sporadic in many
locations. Lastly, no classification system for shelters has been put into effect. There are
no mechanisms or facilities to separate those who have mental illnesses from the rest of
the shelter population.
United States
In the United States, the "shelter movement" began to grow significantly during the
1970s when there was a high rate of unemployment, housing costs were rising and
individuals with severe mental illnesses were being deinstitutionalized. In the 1980s,
homelessness was becoming a "national epidemic" in the United States and helping
professionals created shelters as "temporary havens." Shelter occupation had more
than doubled by the late 1980s and it doubled again by 2000. Statistics from 2011 show
Page 137 of 289

that "on a given night in January 2010, 407,966 individuals were housed inside
homeless shelters, transitional housing or on the streets. Alternatively, jails have been
used for healthcare enrollment by citizens in certain states.
Homeless shelters need to provide a variety of services to diverse residents. Homeless
shelters, like La Posada Providencia in San Benito, Texas, may also house asylum
seekers, mainly from Mexico, Central America and South America. Shelters also
provide outreach to residents who are unable to use a shelter or who choose not to use
a shelter. Outreach may include providing clothing for cold weather or food. Very few
shelters have case managers that locate resources locally, such as rides to a
department of social services where healthcare can be acquired.
Most shelters typically expect residents to exit in the morning and occupy themselves
elsewhere during the day, returning for an evening meal and to sleep. During times of
inclement weather, shelters may provide services outside of their normal
hours. Curfews vary widely but tend to be at an earlier hour than adults typically might
return to a home. There are also daytime-only homeless shelters, where the homeless
can go when they cannot stay inside at their night time sleeping shelter during the day.
Such an early model of a daytime homeless shelter providing multi-faceted services
is Saint Francis House in Boston, Massachusetts which was officially founded in 1984. It
was based on the settlement house, clubhouse and community center support and
social service models.
In the United States, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
shown in recent studies that about 5 million Americans qualify to use homeless shelters.
As poverty levels continue to rise, it is estimated that the number of homeless shelters,
in particular in the United States, will continue to rise. Based on a survey of 24 U.S.
cities the average stay in a homeless shelter was found to be on average about seven
months out of the year.
Statistics of Homeless Population Within The United States
A study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty estimates that 2.3 to
3.5 million Americans experience homelessness
annually. Alaska, California, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, and Hawaii are the states with
the highest concentration of homeless people. Around 1.5 million children or one of out
every 50 children in America are homeless. Many Americans suffer from the state of
“chronic homelessness,” which is where an individual has a disabling condition who has
been continuously homeless for over a year or has been homeless on at least four
different instances within four years. About 23% of the homeless population has been
tagged as “chronic homeless.” Veterans also represent close to 40% of homeless men
within the United States. Racial demographics of the Homeless Population of the United
States can be represented as:
Whites: 39%
African-Americans: 42%
Page 138 of 289

Hispanics: 13%
Native Americans: 4%
Asians: 2%
Approximately 40% of all homeless youth in the United States identify
as LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender). In San Francisco, approximately 29%
of all the homeless in that city are on the LGBT spectrum. The National Center for
Transgender Equality reports that 1 in 5 transgender individuals has experienced being
homeless at least once in their lives.
Pet ownership among the homeless varies, but estimates indicate that about 5 and 10
percent of the homeless in the United States have a pet.
Homelessness appears to be largely concentrated within urban areas. Central cities
hold 71% of the homeless population while the suburbs have 21% of the homeless
population. Only 9% of the homeless class can be located within rural areas.
Operations and Role in U.S. Society
Homeless shelters are usually operated by a non-profit agency or a municipal agency,
or are associated with a church. They almost always have Section 501(c)3 corporate
organization with a Board of Directors pulled from various sectors of the community.
Page 139 of 289

Often, such Boards include clergy, elected officials, and even shelter residents and
people from the surrounding community.
Shelters which are funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) require residents to have identification.
Homeless shelters often provide other services to the community at large. The classic
example is the soup kitchen for persons who are not staying at the shelter. Others
include support groups, and/or substance abuse treatment. If they do not offer any of
these services, they can usually refer their clients to agencies that do. Supportive
housing integrates services in a more assertive fashion. The typical pathway through
the interlocking system is that a person may start in a shelter and move
through transitional housing into supportive housing and finally independent housing.
Centers in the United States are also often coordinated with outside programs both for
their mission-specific operations and for ancillary services. For communication of their
availability, most coordinate with the Federally mandated 2-1-1 or the 3-1-1 phone
information system which allow needy persons to find out where shelters are
located. For transportation to shelters, some offer free transportation,[15] particularly in
cases of persons being released from jail. Some jails have specific staff assigned to
placement of persons being released.
List of National Organizations in the U.S Supporting Homeless Shelters
Across the United States there are several national organizations that assist in the
founding and the upkeep of homeless shelters. The main national organizations are:
The National Alliance to End Homelessness
The Salvation Army
The National Coalition for the Homeless
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program (United Way)
The Department of Veterans Affairs
Feeding America
Housing Assistance Council
Help USA. [58]
United States Libraries
Homeless shelters often work with other organizations in order to support and help the
homeless improve their situations, including libraries. They often work with the coalition
to grant a temporary library card for homeless coalition members who can use a shelter
as a local address. This is intending to give new patrons the opportunity to utilize the
computer services, books, programs, and more that the library offers.
Page 140 of 289

Government Assistance Programs in the United States
Homeless individuals within the United States are assisted through various Federal
programs. Examples include the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD) and the
Social Security Supplemental Income (SSI) programs. Such applicants may qualify
through their medical records. The Social Security Disability Insurance service extends
benefits to families if they have earned sufficient work “credits.” The Social Security
Supplemental Income service offers financial assistance towards individuals in need
who are disabled, blind or elderly.
HUD estimates that it costs $60,000 each year to house a homeless family in a
shelter. Because of this, HUD has various programs in place to help families, including
rapid rehousing and permanent housing vouchers. Housing vouchers from HUD are
considered especially important for helping to prevent families with children from
becoming homeless and also to help these families be able to leave the shelter system
permanently.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is solely aimed at helping homeless veterans.
Although this organization assists a specific concentration of individuals, it currently
constitutes the largest network of homeless treatment within the United States.
Australia
Other Countries
In Australia, due to government funding requirements, most homelessness services fill
the role of both daytime and night time shelters. Shelters develop empowerment based
"wrap around" services in which residents are case managed and supported in their
efforts to become self-reliant. An example of such a service provider in this area in
Australia is Najidah.
Youth refuges in Australia provide both a residential setting for crisis accommodation as
well as case management to assist young people to live independently. Youth refuges
are a relatively new form of homeless shelters. In New South Wales the early refuges
Page 141 of 289

include Caretakers Cottage, Young People's Refuge, Taldamunde Youth Services, all
founded in the mid-1970s.
Canada
Canada has an estimated homeless population somewhere between 150,000 and
300,000 people as reported in 2014. Canada has responded to an increase in
homelessness by increasing the amount of shelter space available to individuals. A
study done in Canada also found that individuals entering shelters and drop-in
centers experienced a loss of their own sense of personhood. Therapeutic Conversation
therapy has been tested and found successful in Calgary with a small group of
homeless shelter residents in improving their mental health outcomes. Calgary has
seen an increase in the amount of homelessness, partly due to the "lack of affordable
rental units."
A nationwide volunteer group in Canada, the Angels in the Night, sponsored by Invis-
Mortgage Intelligence, donates cold-weather clothes and other supplies to the
homeless, visiting shelters and individuals on the streets.
In 2015, Clean the World began a Canadian Operations Center in Montreal order to
supply soap for homeless shelters. Clean the World distributes and recycles hygiene
supplies such as soap and shampoo.
China
In China, homeless estimates vary, since the Social Welfare Department does not
consider those living in temporary shelters to be "homeless." There may be
approximately 1 to 1.5 million homeless children who have left their families because of
extreme poverty, family issues or abuse.
In the city of Dali, there is an annual conference for "beggars." In 2014, a governmentsponsored
shelter in Henan province which houses 20 homeless individuals was under
scrutiny for tying children to trees and providing inadequate sleeping areas.
India
India defines homelessness as not being in residence of a "census house" which must
be a structure with a roof.
In India, youth can become homeless because of child abandonment. Youth
in Jammu and Kashmir who live in shelters reported high prevalence of emotional and
physical abuse, and emotional and physical neglect while living in homeless shelters.
Homeless individuals and families in India face challenges accessing water and hygiene
services. A 2011 Census of India found that safe drinking water coverage in urban
areas is at 91.9% while regular sanitation access is at 81.4%. There is a significant lack
of housing in major urban areas in India. People come from the rural part of India to look
Page 142 of 289

for work and when there are no accommodations for housing build their own shelters,
often known as "hutments."
Statistics of Homeless Population Within India
According to the 2011 Census, there were 1.77 million homeless people in India, or
0.15% of the country's total population. In India, the cities with the greatest number of
homeless individuals and families are Greater Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai,
and Bangalore.
Japan
The number of homeless
individuals in Japan as
recorded in 2003, was
around 25,296. Numbers of
those without homes have
been
"increasing
dramatically" since the
"bubble economy" collapsed
in the 1990s. In Tokyo,
around 2007, many
homeless individuals were
cleared out of their
temporary residences in city
parks. In 2011,
the earthquake and tsunami left many individuals homeless and living in shelters.
United Kingdom
"Sleeping rough" or "rough sleeping" is terminology in the United Kingdom for sleeping
without shelter. In addition, "not all homeless people are entitled to housing." Shelters
like 'Jimmy's', in Cambridge, provide access to those who would otherwise be "sleeping
rough", offering temporary accommodation and support services in the basement of
a Baptist Church in the city center.
________
The Housing First Model
Housing First is a relatively recent innovation in human service programs and social
policy regarding treatment of the homeless and is an alternative to a system of
emergency shelter/transitional housing progressions. Rather than moving homeless
individuals through different "levels" of housing, whereby each level moves them closer
to "independent housing" (for example: from the streets to a public shelter, and from a
Page 143 of 289

public shelter to a transitional housing program, and from there to their own apartment
in the community), Housing First moves the homeless individual or household
immediately from the streets or homeless shelters into their own accommodation. "
Housing First approaches are based on the concept that a homeless individual or
household's first and primary need is to obtain stable housing, and that other issues that
may affect the household can and should be addressed once housing is obtained. In
contrast, many other programs operate from a model of "housing readiness" — that is,
that an individual or household must address other issues that may have led to the
episode of homelessness prior to entering housing.
General Principles
Housing First is an approach that offers permanent, affordable housing as quickly as
possible for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and then provides the
supportive services and connections to the community-based supports people need to
keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness. The principles behind this
approach are:
1. Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions
of treatment acceptance or compliance;
2. The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These
services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion;
3. Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services;
4. Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the
community;
5. Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating
abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident
commitment to recovery;
6. Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law;
7. Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.
History and Evolution
In Los Angeles, California in 1988, the "Housing First" Program for families was
launched at Beyond Shelter by Tanya Tull in response to a sharp increase in the
number of homeless families with children. The "housing first" approach for families
includes in-depth screening and assessment for child safety. Families should not be
relocated to rental housing if there are indicators that a child might be in danger. In
"housing first" for families, services are available before, during, and after relocation to
rental housing - but engagement is not a requirement for participation. Unfortunately the
"housing first" philosophy was often misinterpreted in later years and, today, many
government programs promote faulty application of "housing first." For households with
children, appropriate services and monitoring may be delivered through home visits,
outpatient treatment, or linking to appropriate services in the community at-large.
Page 144 of 289

In 1992 Dr. Sam Tsemberis, a faculty member of the Department of Psychiatry of
the New York University School of Medicine, founded Pathways to Housing in New York
City. Housing First for the chronically homeless is premised on the notion that housing
is a basic human right, and so should not be denied to anyone, even if they are abusing
alcohol or other substances. The Housing First model, thus, is philosophically in
contrast to models that require the homeless to abjure substance-abuse and seek
treatment in exchange for housing.
Housing First, when supported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, does not only provide housing. The model, used by nonprofit agencies
throughout America, also provides wraparound case management services to the
tenants. This case management provides stability for homeless individuals, which
increases their success. It allows for accountability and promotes self-sufficiency. The
housing provided through government supported Housing First programs is permanent
and "affordable," meaning that tenants pay 30% of their income towards rent. Housing
First, as pioneered by Pathways to Housing, targets individuals with disabilities. This
housing is supported through two HUD programs. They are the Supportive
Housing Program and the Shelter Plus Care Program. Pathways' Housing First model
has been recognized by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration as an Evidence-based practice.
The Housing First Model is executed through either a scattered-site or project-based
implementation. A scattered-site Housing First program is a model in which residents
are offered the opportunity of being housed in individual housing units throughout a
community. This model integrates participants in a community as opposed to
assembling multiple or all participants in one project or location. In a project-based
Page 145 of 289

Housing First implementation, residents are offered units within a single housing project
or site. This model congregates multiple or all participants in one locality. In both the
scattered-site and project-based Housing First programs, residents are given access to
a wide variety of supportive health and rehabilitation services which they have the
option, although not mandatory, to participate in and receive treatment.
Housing First is currently endorsed by the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH) as a "best practice" for governments and service-agencies to
use in their fight to end chronic homelessness in America.
Housing First programs currently operate throughout the United States in cities such
as New Orleans, Louisiana; Plattsburgh, New York; Anchorage, Alaska; Minneapolis,
Minnesota; New York City; District of Columbia; Denver, Colorado; San Francisco,
California; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Quincy, Massachusetts; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; Los Angeles; Austin,
Texas; and Cleveland, Ohio, among many others, and are intended to be crucial
aspects of communities' so-called "10-Year Plans To End Chronic Homelessness" also
advocated by USICH. Rapid Re-Housing is based on Housing First principles and is
considered a subset of the Housing First approach. Rapid Re-Housing differs primarily
in the provision of short-term rent subsidies (generally 3–6 months), after which the
tenant either pays rent without a subsidy or has access to a Section 8 Housing Choice
voucher or the equivalent.
Evidence and Outcomes
In Massachusetts, the Home & Healthy for Good program reported some significant
outcomes that were favorable especially in the area of cost savings.
The Denver Housing First Collaborative, operated by the Colorado Coalition for the
Homeless, provides housing through a Housing First approach to more than 200
chronically homeless individuals. A 2006 cost study documented a significant reduction
in the use and cost of emergency services by program participants as well as increased
health status. Emergency room visits and costs were reduced by an average of 34.3
percent. Hospital inpatient costs were reduced by 66 percent. Detox visits were reduced
by 82 percent. Incarceration days and costs were reduced by 76 percent. 77 percent of
those entering the program continued to be housed in the program after two years.
Researchers in Seattle, Washington, partnering with the Downtown Emergency Service
Center, found that providing housing and support services for homeless alcoholics costs
taxpayers less than leaving them on the street, where taxpayer money goes towards
police and emergency health care. Results of the study funded by the Substance Abuse
Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation appeared
in the Journal of the American Medical Association April, 2009. This first US controlled
assessment of the effectiveness of Housing First specifically targeting chronically
homeless alcoholics showed that the program saved taxpayers more than $4 million
over the first year of operation. During the first six months, even after considering the
Page 146 of 289

cost of administering the housing, 95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown
Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent—nearly US $2,500
per month per person in health and social services, compared to the per month costs of
a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people. Further, stable housing also results in
reduced drinking among homeless alcoholics.
In Utah, there has been "a 72 percent decrease overall since enacting the plan in 2005"
according to the Utah Division of Housing and Community Development.
In August 2007, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that
the number of chronically homeless individuals living on the streets or in shelters
dropped by an unprecedented 30 percent, from 175,914 people in 2005 to 123,833 in
2007. This was credited in part to the "housing first" approach; Congress in 1999
directed that HUD spend 30% of its funding on the method.
In September 2010, it was reported that the Housing First Initiative had significantly
reduced the chronic homeless single person population in Boston, Massachusetts,
although homeless families were still increasing in number. Some shelters were
reducing the number of beds due to lowered numbers of homeless, and some
Page 147 of 289

emergency shelter facilities were closing, especially the emergency Boston Night
Center. By 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh had announced a 3-year plan to end
chronic homelessness, focusing on coordinating efforts among public agencies and
nonprofit organizations providing services to homeless men and women.
In 2013, the estimated national public cost of chronic homelessness was between $3.7
and $4.7 billion according to the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH). Through Housing First programs, chronically homeless
individuals are using fewer hospital resources, spending less time in costly incarceration
and requiring fewer emergency room visits. For example, a review of the impact of
permanent supportive housing and case management on the health of the chronically
homeless found evidence that these services have a positive impact on health
outcomes such as self-reported mental health status and substance use, a large impact
on health care utilization, and a reduction in Medicaid health care costs. Studies in New
York City and in Utah have shown that every homeless person housed in programs
such as Housing First saves taxpayers $10,000 and $8,000 a year, respectively. A
research study at University of Northern Carolina also reported that a housing project
for the chronically homeless called Moore Place had saved the county $2.4 million.
Post–2007 US Policy and Legislation
The United States Congress appropriated $25 million in the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Grants for 2008 to show the effectiveness of Rapid Re-housing programs in
reducing family homelessness.
In February 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 part of which addressed homelessness prevention, allocating $1.5 billion for
a Homeless Prevention Fund. The funding for it was called the "Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program" (HPRP), and was distributed using the
formula for the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program.
On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and
Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act into Public Law (Public Law 111-22 or "PL
111-22"), reauthorizing HUD's Homeless Assistance programs. It was part of
the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. The HEARTH act allows for the
prevention of homelessness, rapid re-housing, consolidation of housing programs, and
new homeless categories. In the eighteen months after the bill's signing, HUD must
make regulations implementing this new McKinney program.
In late 2009, some homeless advocacy organizations, such as the National Coalition for
the Homeless, reported and published perceived problems with the HEARTH Act of
2009 as a HUD McKinney-Vento Reauthorization bill, especially with regard to privacy,
definitional ineligibility, community roles, and restrictions on eligibile activities.
On June 22, 2010, the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness presented Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End
Page 148 of 289

Homelessness to the Obama Administration and Congress. This is the nation's first
comprehensive strategy as mandated by the HEARTH Act and includes Housing First
as a best practice for reaching the goal of ending chronic homelessness by 2015.
On June 11, 2014 the 100,000 Homes Campaign in the United States, launched in 2010
to "help communities around the country place 100,000 chronically homeless people
into permanent supportive housing" announced that it reached its four-year goal of
housing 100,000 chronically homeless people nearly two months before its July 29
deadline.
New York Times journalist David Bornstein summarized key elements of the 100,000
Homes Campaign that campaign leaders attribute to its success. [39] This included
learning individual homeless people's "name and need" by mobilizing volunteers to go
very early in the morning to check on them, establishing a "vulnerability index" so they
could prioritize certain homeless people and "bring housing advocates and agency
representatives together to streamline the placement processes, and share ideas about
how to cut through red tape."
Application to Family Homelessness
The Housing First methodology was initially developed in 1988 in Los Angeles,
California, to address an increase in family homelessness. The basic methodology
Page 149 of 289

helps homeless families to relocate from shelters and transitional housing directly into
permanent rental housing in the community at-large as quickly as possible, with homebased
case management support for a traditional period of time. In other words, the
services traditionally being provided in transitional housing were instead provided to
families after they had been assisted in relocating to permanent housing at rents they
could afford. This was a major innovation in the field at the time. The basic premise was
that families were more responsive to interventions and support from a stable
permanent housing base than while still homeless. In the 2009 HEARTH Act, the
Housing First approach to ending homelessness was codified into law. Housing First
programs for families differ dramatically from Housing First for the chronically homeless,
as children are involved. Beyond Shelter's leadership promoted this new approach
across the country for the next 20 years, working collaboratively with the National
Alliance to End Homelessness.
Australia
Outside the United States
In South Australia, the State Government of Premier Mike Rann (2002 to 2011)
committed substantial funding to a series of initiatives designed to combat
homelessness. Advised by Social Inclusion Commissioner David Cappo and the
founder of New York's Common Ground program, Rosanne Haggerty, the Rann
Government established Common Ground Adelaide, building high quality inner city
apartments (combined with intensive support) for "rough sleeping" homeless people.
The government also funded the Street to Home program and a hospital liaison service
designed to assist homeless people who are admitted to the emergency departments of
Adelaide's major public hospitals. Rather than being released back into homelessness,
patients identified as rough sleepers are found accommodation backed by professional
support. Common Ground and Street to Home now operate across Australia in other
states.
Canada
In its Economic Action Plan 2013, the Federal Government of Canada proposed $119
million annually from March 2014 until March 2019—with $600 million in new funding—
to renew its Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS). In dealing with homelessness in
Canada, the focus is on the Housing First model. Thus, private or public organizations
across Canada are eligible to receive HPS subsidies to implement Housing First
programs. In 2008, the Federal Government of Canada funded a five-year
demonstration program, the At Home/Chez Soi project, aimed at providing evidence
about what services and systems best help people experiencing serious mental illness
and homelessness. Launched in November 2009 and ending in March 2013, the At
Home/Chez Soi project was actively addressing the housing need by offering Housing
First programs to people with mental illness who were experiencing homelessness in
five cities: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal and Moncton. In total, At
Home/Chez Soi has provided more than 1,000 Canadians with housing.
Page 150 of 289

Housing First has grown in popularity in Canada and used in many Canadian ten-year
plans to end homelessness, such as those in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta. Housing
First: A Canadian Perspective (TM) is spearheaded by Pathways to Housing Calgary
and director Sue Fortune. Canadian adaptations to Housing First have demonstrated
positive outcomes as documented on the website: www.thealex.ca (Housing Programs;
Pathways to Housing). Canadian implementations of Housing First must be tailored to
Canadian homelessness, resources, politics and philosophy.
In Calgary, Alberta, the Alex Pathways to Housing Calgary which opened in 2007, has
150 individuals in scatter site homes in 2013. Clients pay 30 percent of their income
towards their rent: 85 percent of Pathways to Housing clients receive Assured Income
for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) benefits and 15 percent receive Alberta Works.
The Alex Pathways to Housing uses a Housing First model, but it also uses Assertive
Community Treatment (ACT), an integrated approach to healthcare where clients
access a team of "nurses, mental health specialists, justice specialists and substance
abuse specialists." Director Sue Fortune is committed to the 10 Year Plan To End
Homelessness in the Calgary Region. Fortune reported that the Housing First approach
resulted in a 66 percent decline in days hospitalized (from one year prior to intake
compared to one year in the program), a 38 percent decline in times in emergency
room, a 41 percent decline in EMS events, a 79 percent decline in days in jail and a 30
Page 151 of 289

percent decline in police interactions. Sue Fortune, Director of Alex Pathways to
Housing in Calgary in her 2013 presentation entitled "Canadian Adaptations using
Housing First: A Canadian Perspective" argued that less than 1% of existing clients
return to shelters or rough sleeping; clients spend 76% fewer days in jail; clients have
35% decline in police interactions.
Pathways to Housing Canada describes the Housing First as a "client-driven strategy
that provides immediate access to an apartment without requiring initial participation in
psychiatric treatment or treatment for sobriety."
Finland
In 2007 the center-right government of Matti Vanhanen began a special program of four
wise men to eliminate homelessness in Finland by 2015.
The program to reduce long-term homelessness targets just some homeless people.
Assessed on the basis of social, health and financial circumstances, this is the hard
core of homelessness. The programme to reduce long-term homelessness focuses on
the 10 biggest urban growth centres, where most of the homeless are to be found. The
main priority, however, is the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, and especially Helsinki itself,
where long-term homelessness is concentrated.
The program is structured around the housing first principle. Solutions to social and
health problems cannot be a condition for organizing accommodation: on the contrary,
accommodation is a requirement which also allows other problems of people who have
been homeless to be solved. Having somewhere to live makes it possible to strengthen
life management skills and is conducive to purposeful activity.
Because of all the reasons there are for long-term homelessness, if it is to be cut there
need to be simultaneous measures at different levels, i.e. universal housing and social
policy measures, the prevention of homelessness and targeted action to reduce longterm
homelessness.
The program’s objectives are:
To halve long-term homelessness by 2011
To eliminate homelessness entirely by 2015
More effective measures to prevent homelessness
France
The French government launched a Housing First-like program in France in 2010 in 4
major cities - Toulouse, Marseille, Lille and Paris - called "Un chez-Soi d'abord". It
follows the same principles as the Canadian and US programs: it is focused on
homeless people with mental illness or addicted to drugs or alcohol. The plan is on a
three-year basis for each individual, living in accommodation provided by an NGO.
Page 152 of 289

Clients are given any needed help with social issues and medical care. The first houses
have been working in three cities since 2011 and a hundred apartments have been
planned in Paris starting in May 2012.
Several NGOs are involved in this trial. They provide rental management and social
support for tenants.
Those NGOs are linked with scientists investigating the results of the experiment and
serve as a relay for information and status reports on the targeted public. The lead team
of "Un chez-soi d'abord" is expecting results to be published around 2017.
Japan
Though homeless support groups like non-profit
organization Moyai, Bigissue, Médecins du Monde Japan have requested Housing First,
Japanese government does not have a Housing First program yet. Traditionally, the
government offers public housing so-called Koei-jutaku for low-income people by public
housing law and it is run by local government. Rent fees are subject to change
according to household income. Because applicants must be selected by lottery, lowincome
people cannot live in the housing soon though they have an advantage. There
are a couple of Housing First-like programs. Non-profit organization
Page 153 of 289

Littleones renovates discarded or empty homes and they rent the rooms to single
mothers with financial and occupational support. Tsukuroi Tokyo fund advocates a
housing first and they built a shelter specially for homeless people.
United Kingdom
The UK government announced plans for a Housing First pilot program in the West
Midlands, Liverpool, and Manchester, along with funding of £28m. This followed
publication of a report entitled Housing First by the Centre for Social Justice which cited
the results from the Finnish application of Housing First.
One-Size-Fits-All
Criticism of Housing First
Ralph DaCosta Nunez, the President and CEO of the Institute for Children, Poverty and
Homelessness (ICPH), who is also a Professor at Columbia University, predicted this
one-size-fits-all is destined to fail as statistics in New York City prove. Dr. Nunez
described the approach as "'public stupidity'" rather than "'public policy'". He also
complained that Housing First "is all that’s left after the other poverty fighting programs
have been underfunded or eliminated." Nunez advocates for a three tiered approach to
addressing homelessness with Housing First as only the first component of that
approach.
Following Panelák: A Failed Communist Model
Sharam Kohan, a social policy expert and economist, compared the Housing First
model to Panelák of the former communist countries that tried to end homelessness by
providing permanent and unconditional public housing. Dr. Kohan criticized Housing
First model for following Panelák's failed philosophy and approaches. Dr. Kohan points
to a growing number of reports from communities that have implemented Housing First
programs which are "credited with creating slums and slumlord."
Limits of Evidence Based Policy
On July 31, 2011, Prof. Victoria Stanhope, Ph.D., of New York University School of
Social Work and Prof. Kerry Dunn, J.D., Ph.D., of University of New England School of
Social Work, published “The curious case of Housing First; The limits of evidence-based
policy” in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Drs. Stanhope and Dunn
gave an overview of evidence-based policy and presented “critiques based on its
reliance on positivist methods and technical approach to policy making. Using these
critiques as a framework, the paper discusse[d] the case of Housing First, a policy
adopted by the Bush Administration in order to address the problem of chronic
homelessness.” According to Drs. Stanhope and Dunn, the Housing First “is an
example of research-driven policy making but also resulted in a progressive policy being
promoted by a conservative administration. In discussing the case, the paper elaborates
Page 154 of 289

on the relationship between evidence and policy, arguing that evidence-based policy
fails to integrate evidence and values into policy deliberations. The paper concludes
with alternative models of policy decision-making and their implications for research.”
Housing First has been criticized on its failure to address broader service outcomes,
namely substance abuse (in one case, it was argued that the only reason substance
abuse outcomes were no worse was that the residents were not severely
addicted). These criticisms have been rebutted on the grounds that Housing First is a
program to end homelessness not to reduce substance abuse, though more recent
research indicates it is more effective than traditional approaches in this regard as
well. This exchange highlights the way in which the selection of outcomes sets both the
terms of the debate and the parameters of “what works.” Embedded in that mantra are a
priori decisions about what constitutes working and for whom; in this case it was stable
housing for the chronic homeless.
According to Stanhope, Housing First “asserts a right to housing. Such a material right
is an anathema to neoliberal ideology and challenges deeply held beliefs that have
shaped US welfare from its inception: That no one has a right to a government benefit
unless they have proved themselves to be deserving or worthy (e.g., "TANF"), or have
earned it (e.g., social insurance).”
Page 155 of 289

Page 156 of 289

VIII. The Criminalization of
Homelessness
National Coalition for The Homeless
The criminalization of homelessness refers to measures that prohibit life-sustaining
activities such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and/or asking for money/resources
in public spaces. These ordinances include criminal penalties for violations of these
acts.
There are multiple types of criminalization measures which include:
Carrying out sweeps (confiscating personal property including tents, bedding,
papers, clothing, medications, etc.) in city areas where homeless people live.
Making panhandling illegal.
Making it illegal for groups to share food with homeless persons in public spaces.
Enforcing a “quality of life” ordinance relating to public activity and hygiene.
Page 157 of 289

Unfortunately, over the past 25 years, cities across the country have penalized people
who are forced to carryout out life-sustaining activities on the street and in public
spaces; despite the fact these communities lack adequate affordable housing and
shelter space. Ultimately, many of these measures are designed to move homeless
persons out of sight, and at times out of a given city.
Why Is This An Issue?
Criminalization measures that punish homelessness and activities necessary to survive
on the street are counterproductive to ending homelessness. Associated fines and
criminal records provide greater barriers for many to becoming re-housed, and often
perpetuate negative sentiments towards people who are homeless.
The US Interagency Council on Homelessness has strongly advised local governments
not to enact laws criminalizing homelessness because they create additional barriers for
homeless people, fail to increase access to services, and undermine the impact of
service providers.
Consequently, many criminalization measures:
VIOLATE HOMELESS PERSONS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
1st Amendment protection of free speech – Laws restricting speech like begging
targets speech based on content, or does not allow for alternative channels of
communication.
4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure – Law
enforcement being allowed to destroy a homeless person’s belongings.
8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment – Imposing
criminal penalties for engaging in necessary life sustaining activities.
14th Amendment protecting citizenship, due process, and equal protection –
Vague statutes which do not give a person notice of prohibited conduct and
encourage arbitrary enforcement.
EXACERBATE THE SITUATION
A criminal record adds to the already difficult situation of finding employment,
getting housing, or being eligible for certain services.
Additionally, the criminalization of homelessness adds to an already
overburdened criminal justice system by detaining individuals who have not
committed serious crimes. One night in jail costs 3x more on average than a
shelter, and law enforcement is both unprepared and incapable of handling
homelessness and related issues.
CREATE ISSUES OF MORALITY
There is a clear moral issue with punishing someone for carrying out life-sustaining
activities in public when there are no alternatives. People who are already suffering are
being punished further for suffering.
Page 158 of 289

Additionally, the criminalization of homelessness is aimed at the visual ramifications of
homelessness, not the root causes. Not only does it fail to address the underlying
causes, but it further undermines the challenges of homelessness.
TAKING ACTION
What Can Be Done?
The trend of criminalizing homelessness continues to grow. Among the 188 cities
reviewed in NCH’s report, the following increases were identified in criminalization
measures:
7% increase in prohibitions on begging or panhandling
7% increase in prohibitions on camping in particular public places
10% increase in prohibitions on loitering in particular public places
By focusing on reversing the criminalization of homelessness, the additional obstacles
homeless people face can be removed from the already difficult task of helping resolve
homelessness.
Many statewide Homeless Bill of Rights have passed or are being considered that
provide alternatives to criminalization and protection of the civil rights of people
experiencing homelessness.
Page 159 of 289

PUBLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS
National Coalition for the Homeless - Share No More: The Criminalization of
Efforts to Feed People in Need, Report 2014
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National Coalition for the
Homeless - Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S.
Cities
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) - No Safe Place: The
Criminalization of Homeless in U.S. Cities
NCH LINKS
Homeless Bill of Rights
Hate Crimes Against People Experiencing Homelessness
"You Don't Need a Home to Vote" Campaign
Other Resources
About the intersection of the criminalization of mental illness and homelessness
Tools for stopping street harassment
________
Help Us End The Criminalization of Homelessness
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
In response to a troubling increase in laws that criminalize homelessness the National
Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty launched the Housing Not Handcuffs
campaign to help combat this trend. The Housing Not Handcuffs campaign is centered
around the belief that no homeless person should be penalized for simply carrying out
basic human functions and should be able to live with dignity.
Whether you are an experienced advocate, a person experiencing or who has
experienced homelessness, a concerned neighbor, a small business owner, a
government official, or anyone in between, you can make a difference to this campaign.
Endorse the Housing Not Handcuffs campaign today.
Homelessness continues to be a national crisis, affecting millions of people each year,
including a rising number of families. Homeless people, like all people, must engage in
activities such as sleeping or sitting down in order to survive. Yet, in communities
across the nation, these harmless, unavoidable behaviors are treated as criminal
activity under laws that criminalize homelessness.
Homelessness is caused by a severe shortage of affordable housing.
Page 160 of 289

A lack of affordable housing is the leading cause of homelessness, and the problem is
worsening. Rising rents, historically low vacancy rates, and the continued decline of
federally subsidized housing have led to a 7.2 million unit shortage of affordable rental
units available to our nation’s lowest income renters. This means that for every 100
extremely poor households in the country, only 31 will find affordable and available
rental units.
There are fewer available shelter beds than homeless people in major cities across the
nation. In some places, the gap between available space and human need is significant,
leaving hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of people with no choice but to struggle
for survival in outdoor, public places.
Despite the lack of affordable housing and shelter space, many cities have chosen to
criminally punish people living on the street for doing what any human being must do to
survive.
Problems Arise when Cities turn to Criminalization Measures
Criminalization measures do nothing to address the underlying causes of homelessness
and, instead, only worsen the problem. There has been an increase in laws
criminalizing homelessness as indicated in the Law Center's latest report, Housing Not
Handcuffs. While the increase is seen for nearly every surveyed category of
criminalization law, the most dramatic uptick has been in city-wide bans on fundamental
human activities. This increase in city-wide bans shows that the nature of criminalization
is changing and that cities are moving toward prohibiting unavoidable, life sustaining
Page 161 of 289

activities throughout entire communities rather than in specific areas, effectively
criminalizing a homeless person’s very existence.
Criminalization Questions Fundamental Rights
Criminalization laws raise important constitutional concerns, and courts across the
country have found that many such laws violate the rights of homeless people. Courts
have invalidated or enjoined enforcement of criminalization laws on the grounds that
they violate constitutional protections such as the right to freedom of speech under the
First Amendment, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, and the right to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Moreover, the criminalization of homelessness violates international human
rights treaties to which the U.S. is a party. In 2014, the U.N. Human Rights Committee,
reviewing U.S. compliance under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, found that the criminalization of homelessness in the U.S. violated the treaty.
Criminalization Misuses Public Resources
Using the criminal justice system to address homelessness misuses police resources to
address a social problem. This overuse of police to solve social problems has been
criticized by many – including police officers – as contributing to the current climate of
tension between police and neighborhoods subjected to unnecessarily high levels of
police activity.
Criminalization is Cost Ineffective
Criminalization is the most expensive and least effective way of addressing
homelessness. A growing body of research comparing the cost of homelessness
(including the cost of criminalization) with the cost of providing housing to homeless
people shows that housing is the most affordable option. With state and local budgets
stretched to their limit, rational, cost-effective policies are needed – not ineffective
measures that waste precious taxpayer dollars.
Criminalization Laws Should Be Replaced with Constructive Solutions to Ending
Homelessness
Criminalization is not the answer to meeting the needs of cities that are concerned
about homelessness. There are sensible, cost-effective, and humane solutions to
homelessness, which a number of cities have pursued.
________
Page 162 of 289

Criminalization of Homelessness Increases in U.S. Cities
National Low Income Housing Coalition
A report by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) found an
increase in the criminalization of homelessness over the past 10 years in U.S. cities.
NLCHP recommends more sensible, humane, and effective policies to address
homelessness that range from repealing laws that criminalize homelessness to
expanding access to affordable housing.
Local governments increasingly face dwindling resources, particularly for affordable
housing, to contend with homelessness. Rather than focus on the root causes of
homelessness, many cities have enacted laws that make life-sustaining activities for the
homeless, such as sleeping in public spaces, illegal. These laws represent a clear intent
to remove the homeless from public spaces, despite the lack of other options for
homeless individuals.
NLCHP surveyed the ordinances of 187 cities for the last 10 years. Among these cities:
• Thirty-three percent prohibit camping in public citywide, and 50% prohibit
camping in particular public places.
• Eighteen percent prohibit sleeping in public citywide, and 27% prohibit sleeping
in particular public places.
Page 163 of 289

• Thirty-nine percent prohibit living in vehicles.
• Forty-seven percent prohibit sitting and lying down in particular public places.
• Twenty-seven percent prohibit panhandling citywide, and 61% prohibit
panhandling in particular public places.
• Thirty-two percent have citywide prohibitions on loitering, loafing, and vagrancy,
and 54% have similar prohibitions for specific public places.
The prevalence of these laws, particularly citywide prohibitions, have dramatically
increased over the past 10 years. Since 2006, citywide bans on loitering, loafing, and
vagrancy increased by 88%, on sitting and lying down in certain public places increased
by 52%, on panhandling grew by 43%, on camping increased by 69%, and on sleeping
in public increased by 31%.
The report recommends repealing laws that criminalize homelessness and training law
enforcement officials on how to respond to a homeless person with a mental health
crisis to reduce the likelihood of them going to jail rather than getting treatment. The
report identifies the lack of affordable housing as the key issue driving homelessness.
The report recommends strengthening tenant protections, increasing the minimum
wage, and expanding the supply of housing affordable to the lowest income
households.
________
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS:
AN EXPLAINER
Bidish Sarma, Jessica Brand | Jun 29, 2018
Most evenings, Aguirre Dick rides his bike about three miles from the streets of Waikiki
in Honolulu to the slopes of a volcano, where he sleeps. If he doesn’t make that trek, he
could be arrested. A 2014 law made it illegal to sit or lie down on the public sidewalks in
Waikiki. As a result of this law, those without homes, like Aguirre, live in constant fear of
being pushed into the criminal justice system simply because they are too poor to own
or rent lodging.
In San Diego, police arrested a pregnant Alexis Leftridge as she slept in her tent and
jailed her for several days. Leftridge became homeless after losing her nursing job in
2014 — without money for rent, she was evicted. To get out of jail, she agreed to an
order to stay away from the area, but she now has so many that she does not know
where to go. According to pleadingsfiled in a lawsuit against the city, she is afraid she
will be arrested for “walking along the wrong street.” She has subsequently given birth
Page 164 of 289

to a baby boy and currently has a room at a shelter. But, because the shelter is within
the “stay away” area, she is at risk of re-arrest.
In Houston, Texas, Spencer Stevens became homeless in 2015 after losing his job as a
forklift operator. He has congestive heart failure, which prevents him from taking
another manual labor job. Living under the highway median, he cooks meals on his
griddle. If legal challenges fail, he could be arrested for both living and cooking there.
Houston has made it illegal to block a sidewalk, stand on a roadway median, sleep on
public property or in a makeshift shelter, or have a heating device in public.
Every day, law enforcement officers across the country issue tickets to those
experiencing homelessness as they engage in basic, life-sustaining behaviors, like
sleeping on the streets or cooking a meal in public on a griddle. Prosecutors then
frequently charge those individuals with crimes. By relying upon law enforcement to
address an issue that should more appropriately be considered as falling within the
domain of public health, communities are expending a tremendous amount of public
money unnecessarily and ineffectively, and exacerbating the underlying causes of
homelessness. Below, we discuss the destructive and often devastating human and
financial costs of criminalizing homelessness in America.
1. Homelessness is a chronic problem.
Experts believe that as many as two million people in the country experience
homelessness at some point in a given year, with about 500,000 living without a home
Page 165 of 289

each night. About 15 percent of those are chronically homeless, meaning they have
been without a home for years.
Racial minorities comprise a significant percentage of the population experiencing
homelessness. While African Americans represent about 12.5 percent of the general
population, they represent over 40 percent of the homeless population.
In some communities, there has been a significant increase in the population of Latinos
facing homelessness. Many experience acute fear or face unique obstacles as a result
of their uncertain legal status. Consider Hector, a homeless man in New York who does
not utilize shelter services because he is afraid that he will be identified and then
deported. He lives near the train tracks along with several others who have refused to
enter shelters since President Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Military veterans confront homelessness at an alarming rate. More than 10 percent of
the adult homeless population has served in the military.
Survivors of domestic violence also experience high rates of homelessness. A recent
study in Minnesota showed that 35 percent of homeless women reported domestic
abuse as a cause.
A 2017 nationwide survey revealed that, on a given night, almost 41,000 people
experiencing homelessness were 24 years old or younger, 12 percent of whom were
below age 18. Many of these young people have suffered significant trauma. Youth who
identify as LGBTQ, have special needs or disabilities, or are pregnant or parenting are
also more likely to become homeless.
Half of those experiencing homelessness have a physical or mental disability, or both.
2. The criminalization of homelessness is growing.
Hundreds of jurisdictions across the U.S. have criminalized homelessness, and the
trend shows no signs of abating. Laws criminalizing homelessness have multiplied in
the last 10 years in 187 studied cities. The report calls out several jurisdictions in a “Hall
of Shame” section, including Honolulu, Denver, and Dallas.
In 2016, Honolulu adopted a spate of laws that target homeless people, and police
ramped up enforcement of these “quality of life” ordinances. Why? Pressure from the
business and tourism industry, which in the past has funded airfare to the mainland for
homeless people who came to Hawaii.
In Denver, the state’s 76 largest cities have, as a group, passed 351 ordinances that
target homeless people, including bans on camping and bans on sharing food outside.
Page 166 of 289

In Dallas, police issued 11,000 “sleeping in public” citations between 2011 and 2015.
Police also stopped people for loitering, panhandling, and for sleeping in public spaces
in the city — even though the city lacks sufficient shelter beds.
In late 2017 in Portland, Oregon, the Columbia Sportswear CEO called for more policing
of the homeless population after moving his company headquarters downtown. In
response, the head of the Business for a Better Portland urged the city to adopt “holistic
and collaborative solutions” to systemically address the underlying causes of
homelessness. Activists also fired back by protesting the city’s “no-sit” laws in front of
Columbia Sportswear’s downtown store, forcing the company to close for the day.
3.
Criminalizing
homelessness
does nothing
to address its
root causes.
The causes of
homelessness
vary, but
experts largely
agree that both
structural and
individual
factors play a
role. Structural
factors include
poverty,
inadequate
affordable
housing, inadequate access to meaningful public assistance, decreased availability of
mental health care, and discrimination.
In Detroit, for example, advocates report that an increasing number of families
experience homelessness because the city lacks affordable housing and has a high rate
of evictions. About 3,000 children experience homelessness each year in Detroit.
Similarly, in San Diego, skyrocketing rents, low vacancy rates, and a severe shortage of
affordable housing have placed the city at a “tipping point.” Over the past year, there
has been a 14 percent increase in people living on the streets in San Diego. This
situation is likely to grow worse, as California has cut $200 million from the city’s
affordable housing programs over the past six years.
There are also personal factors that can cause homelessness, including traumatic
events, family crises, and the onset of mental or physical problems.
Page 167 of 289

In an interview with NPR, David Pirtle described why, even when temperatures dropped
below freezing, he stayed on the streets. Suffering from schizophrenia, he feared large
crowds and experienced paranoia, so he avoided shelters: “All I can say is that my fear
of the unknown, of what might be waiting for me at that shelter, was worse than my fear
of the known risk, you know, of staying out on the street.”
Dorothy Edwards spent eight years on the streets of Pasadena, California, where she
slept in alleys and ate food out of Dumpsters, smoking meth to ward off depression.
During that time, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted. She checked herself into a
psychiatric ward on numerous occasions, but kept returning to the streets. It took eight
years for counselors to diagnose her with depression and post-traumatic stress
disorder. Now receiving adequate treatment, she lives in an apartment with her dog and
is actively looking for a job.
4. These laws criminalize what for many is life-sustaining behavior.
Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, states and cities have adopted
hundreds of laws making it harder for homeless people to survive.
Camping, sleeping, or lying down in public
According to a 2014 analysis of 187 American cities by the National Law Center on
Homelessness & Poverty, over half prohibited camping, sitting, or lying down in certain
areas, and a third banned these activities citywide. Cities often outlaw these practices
without providing additional shelter beds..
In Houston, a city ordinance, enacted allegedly for “safety,” makes it illegal to sleep in a
tent, box, or other makeshift shelter on public property. A federal district judge issued a
temporary restraining order against the ban, writing that those individuals targeted by
the ordinance are “involuntarily in public, harmlessly attempting to shelter themselves —
an act they cannot realistically forgo, and that is integral to their status as unsheltered
homeless individuals.” But in December, the judge lifted her order.
In Dallas, one individual, Sarge, has been ticketed repeatedly for sleeping in public,
something he must do to survive. He estimates that he has received around 75 tickets
over the years.
In Austin, a man named Ross reports being “herded like cattle” because of the city’s
anti-camping law. “They have a law saying you can’t sit down. So if you don’t have
anywhere to live and all the homeless shelters are full, then where do you go? Do you
walk in a circle 24 hours a day?
You have to sleep and if you slow down to sleep you go to jail for it, which I’ve done,
that’s pretty much where you get to sleep.”
Page 168 of 289

Begging in Public (Panhandling)
According to the 2014 National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty report, there
was a 25 percent increase in anti-panhandling laws between 2011 and 2014.
In 2014 in Denver, police arrested 300 people for panhandling. In New York, police
arrested a homeless man after he asked a police officer if he had a dollar to spare.
Jason Metts of Fayetteville, North Carolina, reports that he is disabled and can’t work.
“To survive,” he told a reporter, he has started panhandling. Police have arrested him
seven times. “I’m not stealing, I’m not robbing people, and I’m not approaching
anybody. Those that give to me roll down their windows, I’m not scaring them,” Metts
stated.
Encroachment — storing property in public ways
Laws across the country make it illegal for
individuals to place property on public ways. For
those with no home, there is no other place to
store their belongings.
In San Diego, police cited Army veteran Eric
Arundel several times after he placed his tarp,
bedding, clothing, medication, and toiletries on the
sidewalk.
He suffers from pneumonia and uses the tarp to stay warm. Also in San Diego, police
cited Jeff Hayes for encroachment, even though he had nowhere to store his
belongings. Hayes became homeless as a result of suffering from multiple sclerosis,
which made it impossible for him to work.
He had no criminal record until receiving the encroachment charge. He then missed his
court date because he was in the hospital for sepsis. Both Arundel and Hayes are
plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit challenging the law.
Living in Vehicles
City laws often preclude people from sleeping in their parked cars during certain hours
of the night.
Nearly 7,000 people live in their cars in Los Angeles, but the city recently enacted
regulations banning parking “for habitation purposes” on residential streets from 9 p.m.
to 6 a.m. New ordinances also make it illegal to live in a vehicle parked within a block of
schools, daycare facilities, and parks. Santa Monica, Malibu, and Culver City have
similar bans in place, as does San Diego.
Page 169 of 289

Food Sharing
Controversial city ordinances ban organizations from feeding people in public, claiming
that doing so constitutes a public health and safety risk.
Police arrested seven people in Tampa, Florida, for distributing food to homeless people
without a permit. Members of the Tampa-based organization Food Not Bombs stated
that the arrests prove the city is criminalizing compassion.
In response to a hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego, the El Cajon City Council passed an
emergency ordinance prohibiting food distribution on any city-owned property. In
November, activists handed out 100 bagged lunches, calling the ordinance “a punitive
measure to dehumanize and criminalize the homeless.” The city finally lifted the ban in
late January.
In Atlanta, on the Sunday before Thanksgiving 2017, two Food Not Bombs activists
went to a local park to hand out food to the homeless, as they do every Sunday. But on
that day, police ticketed them, citing a rarely enforced law requiring organizations to
obtain a permit before distributing food. According to a flier distributed by the Atlanta
Department of Public Safety (that cites no actual evidence), enforcement is necessary
because “many people become dependent on these activities, leading them to stay on
the streets instead of seeking the help and support they truly need.”
5. Laws criminalizing homelessness make the problem worse.
In addition to being unfair and often inhumane, these laws exacerbate the problems
they purport to address.
Individuals who are saddled with criminal records for engaging in survival activities like
sleeping on the street face steeper challenges finding jobs, housing, or other benefits
like food stamps, thus perpetuating the cycle of homelessness. Under federal law,
people who have spent more than 90 days incarcerated lose their “chronic
homelessness” status and are no longer a priority for permanent housing.
Stay-away orders—often issued alongside tickets for sleeping in public—also keep
people from accessing social services that they urgently need. In San Diego, for
example, most social service providers are downtown. But police regularly issue stay
away orders from these locations to those found sleeping on the street. This means
they can’t get food stamps or other assistance without risking arrest.
Similarly, stay-away orders cause people to lose touch with service providers who are
helping them find housing. According to one such service provider in Baltimore, when
homeless people seeking housing “are forced out of their (outdoor) home bases and
seek refuge in other parts of town, people often lose touch with the points of contact we
have for them. Thus, they lose their long-term housing opportunity.”
Page 170 of 289

These charges often carry fines that people cannot pay—and unpaid fines eventually
lead to jail time. In Dallas, for example, citations for sleeping in public often carry $150-
$300 tickets. Most homeless individuals cannot afford these fines, and may, as a result,
skip court dates. Many also miss court because they have no address to receive court
notices, or because they lack money for transportation. Missing court can lead to arrest
warrants, more charges and jail, thus driving them deeper into the criminal justice
system.
6.Criminalizing homelessness is expensive.
Studies show that it costs more to jail those who are homeless than to provide them
with shelter. On average, one day in jail costs $87, whereas a shelter bed costs $28.
And that, in turn, diverts money from implementing effective solutions. In San Diego,
homelessness is a serious problem. But, while officials focus on ticketing and jailing
people, they neglect to address the root causes of homelessness, such as an
inadequate supply of affordable housing. This negligence was on full display during the
hepatitis A outbreak that killed at least 16 people and caused over 400 to get sick.
7.Criminalizing
homelessness may be
unconstitutional.
Aside from being
counterproductive, there’s
ample evidence that
criminalizing homelessness
violates the Constitution.
The First Amendment
Freedom of Expression: In
2015, in Reed v. Gilbert, the
Supreme Court struck down a
ban on the public display of
signs for religious services,
ruling that laws regulating the
content of signs are
presumptively unconstitutional.
Relying on that case, the
Seventh Circuit and other federal district courts have struck down panhandling laws in
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts, finding that they impermissibly regulate
expressive conduct.
Fundamental Right To Travel: In Florida in 1992, a Federal District Court declared
Miami’s sit-sleep-lie laws a violation of the right to travel, writing that, “Preventing
Page 171 of 289

homeless individuals from performing activities that are ‘necessities of life,’ such as
sleeping, in any public place when they have nowhere else to go, effectively penalizes
migration.”
The Eighth Amendment
Cruel and Unusual Punishment: In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck
down Los Angeles’s city ordinance prohibiting sleeping, sitting, or lying on the street at
any time of the day. The court ruled that the ordinance unconstitutionally criminalized
unavoidable conduct. The city had a major housing shortage and an inadequate supply
of shelter beds. Homelessness, the court held, is “a chronic state that may have been
acquired ‘innocently or involuntarily.” Thus punishing people for sleeping on the
streets—an inevitable consequence—violated the Eighth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment
Vagueness: Courts have struck down anti-loitering laws as unconstitutionally vague. For
example, in a 1972 Supreme Court decision, the court complained that, because of its
unspecific language, an ordinance in Jacksonville, Florida, placed “almost unfettered
discretion in the hands of the police.”
Attorneys are challenging San Diego’s encroachment laws, originally enacted to force
people to remove trash bins from sidewalks. However, police are using the law to force
the homeless to leave public places. Attorneys are arguing that the law is
unconstitutionally vague because it provides almost no notice for what is criminal —
making it potentially illegal to even place a bag on the sidewalk for just a moment.
Equal Protection: In response to an “emergency” homeless street sweep of
encampments, the ACLU of Indiana recently filed a lawsuit against the city of
Indianapolis. The lawsuit alleges that the city targets homeless people while exempting
others, raising due process and equal protection concerns.
8.Prosecutors and state legislators can choose to stop criminalizing
homelessness.
Prosecutors can refuse to charge for violations of laws that specifically target the
homeless population, like bans on camping and panhandling. In Spokane, Washington,
for example, the city and district attorneys have embraced initiatives to dismiss citations
for offenses that homeless people incur when engaging in life-sustaining activities in
exchange for commitments to utilize housing and social services.
Prosecutors can side with those challenging the constitutionality of laws criminalizing
homelessness. In 2015, the Department of Justice filed a “statement of interest” arguing
that Idaho’s laws criminalizing sleeping in public were unconstitutional. “It should be
uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a universal and unavoidable consequence
of being human violates the Eighth Amendment. … If a person literally has nowhere
Page 172 of 289

else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person
criminalizes her for being homeless.”
Prosecutors can also champion homeless courts and diversion programs, which allow
people to avoid criminal charges after taking life-skills classes or signing up for social
services. In Seattle and Santa Fe, officials have implemented a Law Enforcement
Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program that places people in treatment programs prearrest.
Prosecutors can agree to dismiss outstanding warrants for unpaid fines and quality-oflife
offenses. In Los Angeles, in 2015, the city attorney agreed to do just that if people
accepted social services, job training, and drug and alcohol treatment. His office put
together clinics to help the homeless population participate.
Page 173 of 289

The most straightforward path to ending the criminalization of homelessness runs
through state legislatures. State and local officials should refrain from passing new laws
that target homeless individuals, and they should repeal existing laws that criminalize
life-sustaining and necessary behaviors.
Page 174 of 289

IX. Traditional Solutions
Housing Affordability and Homelessness
National Alliance to End Homelessness
The nation is currently facing one of the most severe affordable housing crises in
history. Not surprisingly, those living in poverty are the most significantly affected.
In the 1970s,
communities had
plenty of affordable
housing. That meant
that when a family or
individual experienced
a crisis and lost
housing, they could
quickly find another
place to live. But by the
mid-1980s, a shrinking
supply of low-cost
housing resulted, and
the combination of
rising rents and slow,
stagnant wage growth
for lower-income
people has continued
and worsened.
at risk of housing instability and homelessness.
Today, 11
million extremely lowincome
households
pay at least half of their
income toward
housing, putting them
The Solution to Homelessness: Housing
The solution to homelessness is straightforward: housing. By connecting people
experiencing homelessness to housing and services, they have a platform from which
they can address other areas that may have contributed to their homelessness, such as
employment, health, and substance abuse.
Page 175 of 289

Homeless Assistance Programs
There are two homelessness-focused housing models that have been demonstrated to
effectively end homelessness. They are:
Permanent Supportive Housing: Permanent supportive housing is long-term
rental assistance and supportive services. It is targeted to individuals and
families with chronic illnesses, disabilities, mental health issues, or substance
use disorders who have experienced long-term or repeated homelessness.
Rapid Re-Housing: Rapid re-housing provides short-term rental assistance and
services. The goals are to help people obtain housing quickly, increase selfsufficiency,
and stay housed.
Public Housing and Voucher Programs
Administered by HUD, public housing and voucher programs provide decent and safe
affordable housing for low-income people and play a critical role in reducing
homelessness.
Housing Choice Voucher Program (Commonly Known As “Section 8“) has
become the dominant form of federal housing assistance. The program, which
provides vouchers to low-income households to help them pay for housing in the
private market, has been found to sharply reduce homelessness.
Public Housing is federally-funded housing that is rented at subsidized rates to
eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
While both public housing and housing vouchers are proven to end homelessness, only
one in four households that are eligible for such assistance receive it due to lack
of funding.
Tackling the Affordable Housing Crisis
In many places across America, there is simply not enough available affordable
housing. Without this housing stock, many homeless Americans are likely to continue to
cycle in and out of homelessness.
The priority now must be to expand the supply of affordable housing. To do this, there is
a need to increase HUD’s ability to serve and house low-income individuals.
________
Page 176 of 289

Housing First
Housing First is a relatively recent innovation in human service programs
and social policy regarding treatment of the homeless and is an alternative to a system
of emergency shelter/transitional housing progressions. Rather than moving homeless
individuals through different "levels" of housing, whereby each level moves them closer
to "independent housing" (for example: from the streets to a public shelter, and from a
public shelter to a transitional housing program, and from there to their own apartment
in the community), Housing First moves the homeless individual or household
immediately from the streets or homeless shelters into their own accommodation. "
Housing First approaches are based on the concept that a homeless individual or
household's first and primary need is to obtain stable housing, and that other issues that
may affect the household can and should be addressed once housing is obtained. In
contrast, many other programs operate from a model of "housing readiness" — that is,
that an individual or household must address other issues that may have led to the
episode of homelessness prior to entering housing.
Page 177 of 289

General Principles
Housing First is an approach that offers permanent, affordable housing as quickly as
possible for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and then provides the
supportive services and connections to the community-based supports people need to
keep their housing and avoid returning to homelessness. The principles behind this
approach are:
1. Move people into housing directly from streets and shelters without preconditions
of treatment acceptance or compliance;
2. The provider is obligated to bring robust support services to the housing. These
services are predicated on assertive engagement, not coercion;
3. Continued tenancy is not dependent on participation in services;
4. Units targeted to most disabled and vulnerable homeless members of the
community;
5. Embraces harm-reduction approach to addictions rather than mandating
abstinence. At the same time, the provider must be prepared to support resident
commitment to recovery;
6. Residents must have leases and tenant protections under the law;
7. Can be implemented as either a project-based or scattered site model.
History and Evolution
In Los Angeles, California in 1988, the "Housing First" Program for families was
launched at Beyond Shelter by Tanya Tull in response to a sharp increase in the
number of homeless families with children. The "housing first" approach for families
includes in-depth screening and assessment for child safety. Families should not be
relocated to rental housing if there are indicators that a child might be in danger. In
"housing first" for families, services are available before, during, and after relocation to
rental housing - but engagement is not a requirement for participation. Unfortunately the
"housing first" philosophy was often misinterpreted in later years and, today, many
government programs promote faulty application of "housing first." For households with
children, appropriate services and monitoring may be delivered through home visits,
outpatient treatment, or linking to appropriate services in the community at-large.
In 1992 Dr. Sam Tsemberis, a faculty member of the Department of Psychiatry of
the New York University School of Medicine, founded Pathways to Housing in New York
City. Housing First for the chronically homeless is premised on the notion that housing
is a basic human right, and so should not be denied to anyone, even if they are abusing
alcohol or other substances. The Housing First model, thus, is philosophically in
Page 178 of 289

contrast to models that require the homeless to abjure substance-abuse and seek
treatment in exchange for housing.
Housing First, when supported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, does not only provide housing. The model, used by nonprofit agencies
throughout America, also provides wraparound case management services to the
tenants. This case management provides stability for homeless individuals, which
increases their success. It allows for accountability and promotes self-sufficiency. The
housing provided through government supported Housing First programs is permanent
and "affordable," meaning that tenants pay 30% of their income towards rent. Housing
First, as pioneered by Pathways to Housing, targets individuals with disabilities. This
housing is supported through two HUD programs. They are the Supportive
Housing Program and the Shelter Plus Care Program. Pathways' Housing First model
has been recognized by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration as an Evidence-based practice.
The Housing First Model is executed through either a scattered-site or project-based
implementation. A scattered-site Housing First program is a model in which residents
are offered the opportunity of being housed in individual housing units throughout a
community. This model integrates participants in a community as opposed to
assembling multiple or all participants in one project or location. In a project-based
Housing First implementation, residents are offered units within a single housing project
or site. This model congregates multiple or all participants in one locality. In both the
scattered-site and project-based Housing First programs, residents are given access to
a wide variety of supportive health and rehabilitation services which they have the
option, although not mandatory, to participate in and receive treatment.
Page 179 of 289

Housing First is currently endorsed by the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH) as a "best practice" for governments and service-agencies to
use in their fight to end chronic homelessness in America.
Housing First programs currently operate throughout the United States in cities such
as New Orleans, Louisiana; Plattsburgh, New York; Anchorage, Alaska; Minneapolis,
Minnesota; New York City; District of Columbia; Denver, Colorado; San Francisco,
California; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Quincy, Massachusetts; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington;Los Angeles; Austin,
Texas; and Cleveland, Ohio, among many others, and are intended to be crucial
aspects of communities' so-called "10-Year Plans To End Chronic Homelessness" also
advocated by USICH. Rapid Re-Housing is based on Housing First principles and is
considered a subset of the Housing First approach. Rapid Re-Housing differs primarily
in the provision of short-term rent subsidies (generally 3–6 months), after which the
tenant either pays rent without a subsidy or has access to a Section 8 Housing Choice
voucher or the equivalent.
Evidence and Outcomes
In Massachusetts, the Home & Healthy for Good program reported some significant
outcomes that were favorable especially in the area of cost savings.
The Denver Housing First Collaborative, operated by the Colorado Coalition for the
Homeless, provides housing through a Housing First approach to more than 200
chronically homeless individuals. A 2006 cost study documented a significant reduction
in the use and cost of emergency services by program participants as well as increased
health status. Emergency room visits and costs were reduced by an average of 34.3
percent. Hospital inpatient costs were reduced by 66 percent. Detox visits were reduced
by 82 percent. Incarceration days and costs were reduced by 76 percent. 77 percent of
those entering the program continued to be housed in the program after two years.
Researchers in Seattle, Washington, partnering with the Downtown Emergency Service
Center, found that providing housing and support services for homeless alcoholics costs
taxpayers less than leaving them on the street, where taxpayer money goes towards
police and emergency health care. Results of the study funded by the Substance Abuse
Policy Research Program (SAPRP) of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation appeared
in the Journal of the American Medical Association April, 2009. This first US controlled
assessment of the effectiveness of Housing First specifically targeting chronically
homeless alcoholics showed that the program saved taxpayers more than $4 million
over the first year of operation. During the first six months, even after considering the
cost of administering the housing, 95 residents in a Housing First program in downtown
Seattle, the study reported an average cost-savings of 53 percent—nearly US $2,500
per month per person in health and social services, compared to the per month costs of
a wait-list control group of 39 homeless people. Further, stable housing also results in
reduced drinking among homeless alcoholics.
Page 180 of 289

In Utah, there has been "a 72 percent decrease overall since enacting the plan in 2005"
according to the Utah Division of Housing and Community Development.
In August 2007, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that
the number of chronically homeless individuals living on the streets or in shelters
dropped by an unprecedented 30 percent, from 175,914 people in 2005 to 123,833 in
2007. This was credited in part to the "housing first" approach; Congress in 1999
directed that HUD spend 30% of its funding on the method.
In September 2010, it was reported that the Housing First Initiative had significantly
reduced the chronic homeless single person population in Boston, Massachusetts,
although homeless families were still increasing in number. Some shelters were
reducing the number of beds due to lowered numbers of homeless, and some
emergency shelter facilities were closing, especially the emergency Boston Night
Center. By 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh had announced a 3-year plan to end
chronic homelessness, focusing on coordinating efforts among public agencies and
nonprofit organizations providing services to homeless men and women.
Page 181 of 289

In 2013, the estimated national public cost of chronic homelessness was between $3.7
and $4.7 billion according to the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (USICH). Through Housing First programs, chronically homeless
individuals are using fewer hospital resources, spending less time in costly incarceration
and requiring fewer emergency room visits. For example, a review of the impact of
permanent supportive housing and case management on the health of the chronically
homeless found evidence that these services have a positive impact on health
outcomes such as self-reported mental health status and substance use, a large impact
on health care utilization, and a reduction in Medicaid health care costs. Studies in New
York City and in Utah have shown that every homeless person housed in programs
such as Housing First saves taxpayers $10,000 and $8,000 a year, respectively. A
research study at University of Northern Carolina also reported that a housing project
for the chronically homeless called Moore Place had saved the county $2.4 million.
Post–2007 US Policy and Legislation
The United States Congress appropriated $25 million in the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Grants for 2008 to show the effectiveness of Rapid Re-housing programs in
reducing family homelessness.
In February 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 part of which addressed homelessness prevention, allocating $1.5 billion for
a Homeless Prevention Fund. The funding for it was called the "Homelessness
Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program" (HPRP), and was distributed using the
formula for the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program.
On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and
Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act into Public Law (Public Law 111-22 or "PL
111-22"), reauthorizing HUD's Homeless Assistance programs. It was part of
the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. The HEARTH act allows for the
prevention of homelessness, rapid re-housing, consolidation of housing programs, and
new homeless categories. In the eighteen months after the bill's signing, HUD must
make regulations implementing this new McKinney program.
In late 2009, some homeless advocacy organizations, such as the National Coalition for
the Homeless, reported and published perceived problems with the HEARTH Act of
2009 as a HUD McKinney-Vento Reauthorization bill, especially with regard to privacy,
definitional ineligibility, community roles, and restrictions on eligibile activities.
On June 22, 2010, the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness presented Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End
Homelessness to the Obama Administration and Congress. This is the nation's first
comprehensive strategy as mandated by the HEARTH Act and includes Housing First
as a best practice for reaching the goal of ending chronic homelessness by 2015.
Page 182 of 289

On June 11, 2014 the 100,000 Homes Campaign in the United States, launched in 2010
to "help communities around the country place 100,000 chronically homeless people
into permanent supportive housing" announced that it reached its four-year goal of
housing 100,000 chronically homeless
people nearly two months before its
July 29 deadline.
New York Times journalist David
Bornstein summarized key elements of
the 100,000 Homes Campaign that
campaign leaders attribute to its
success. This included learning
individual homeless people's "name
and need" by mobilizing volunteers to
go very early in the morning to check on
them, establishing a "vulnerability
index" so they could prioritize certain
homeless people and "bring housing
advocates and agency representatives
together to streamline the placement
processes, and share ideas about how
to cut through red tape."
Application to Family Homelessness
The Housing First methodology was
initially developed in 1988 in Los
Angeles, California, to address an
increase in family homelessness. The
basic methodology helps homeless
families to relocate from shelters and
transitional housing directly into
permanent rental housing in the
community at-large as quickly as
possible, with home-based case
management support for a traditional
period of time. In other words, the
services traditionally being provided in
transitional housing were instead
provided to families after they had been assisted in relocating to permanent housing at
rents they could afford. This was a major innovation in the field at the time. The basic
premise was that families were more responsive to interventions and support from a
stable permanent housing base than while still homeless. In the 2009 HEARTH Act, the
Housing First approach to ending homelessness was codified into law. Housing First
programs for families differ dramatically from Housing First for the chronically homeless,
as children are involved. Beyond Shelter's leadership promoted this new approach
Page 183 of 289

across the country for the next 20 years, working collaboratively with the National
Alliance to End Homelessness.
Australia
Outside the United States
In South Australia, the State Government of Premier Mike Rann (2002 to 2011)
committed substantial funding to a series of initiatives designed to combat
homelessness. Advised by Social Inclusion Commissioner David Cappo and the
founder of New York's Common Ground program, Rosanne Haggerty, the Rann
Government established Common Ground Adelaide, building high quality inner city
apartments (combined with intensive support) for "rough sleeping" homeless people.
The government also funded the Street to Home program and a hospital liaison service
designed to assist homeless people who are admitted to the emergency departments of
Adelaide's major public hospitals. Rather than being released back into homelessness,
patients identified as rough sleepers are found accommodation backed by professional
support. Common Ground and Street to Home now operate across Australia in other
states.
Canada
In its Economic Action Plan 2013, the Federal Government of Canada proposed $119
million annually from March 2014 until March 2019—with $600 million in new funding—
to renew its Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS). In dealing with homelessness in
Canada, the focus is on the Housing First model. Thus, private or public organizations
across Canada are eligible to receive HPS subsidies to implement Housing First
programs. In 2008, the Federal Government of Canada funded a five-year
demonstration program, the At Home/Chez Soi project, aimed at providing evidence
about what services and systems best help people experiencing serious mental illness
and homelessness. Launched in November 2009 and ending in March 2013, the At
Home/Chez Soi project was actively addressing the housing need by offering Housing
First programs to people with mental illness who were experiencing homelessness in
five cities: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montréal and Moncton. In total, At
Home/Chez Soi has provided more than 1,000 Canadians with housing.
Housing First has grown in popularity in Canada and used in many Canadian ten-year
plans to end homelessness, such as those in Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta. Housing
First: A Canadian Perspective (TM) is spearheaded by Pathways to Housing Calgary
and director Sue Fortune. Canadian adaptations to Housing First have demonstrated
positive outcomes as documented on the website: www.thealex.ca (Housing Programs;
Pathways to Housing). Canadian implementations of Housing First must be tailored to
Canadian homelessness, resources, politics and philosophy.
In Calgary, Alberta, the Alex Pathways to Housing Calgary which opened in 2007, has
150 individuals in scatter site homes in 2013. Clients pay 30 percent of their income
Page 184 of 289

towards their rent: 85 percent of Pathways to Housing clients receive Assured Income
for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) benefits and 15 percent receive Alberta Works.
The Alex Pathways to Housing uses a Housing First model, but it also uses Assertive
Community Treatment (ACT), an integrated approach to healthcare where clients
access a team of "nurses, mental health specialists, justice specialists and substance
abuse specialists." Director
Sue Fortune is committed
to the 10 Year Plan To End
Homelessless in the
Calgary Region. Fortune
reported that the Housing
First approach resulted in a
66 percent decline in days
hospitalized (from one year
prior to intake compared to
one year in the program), a
38 percent decline in times
in emergency room, a 41
percent decline in EMS
events, a 79 percent
decline in days in jail and a
30 percent decline in police
interactions. Sue Fortune,
Director of Alex Pathways
to Housing in Calgary in her
2013 presentation entitled
"Canadian Adaptations
using Housing First: A Canadian Perspective" argued that less than 1% of existing
clients return to shelters or rough sleeping; clients spend 76% fewer days in jail; clients
have 35% decline in police interactions.
Pathways to Housing Canada describes the Housing First as a "client-driven strategy
that provides immediate access to an apartment without requiring initial participation in
psychiatric treatment or treatment for sobriety."
Finland
In 2007 the centre-right government of Matti Vanhanen began a special program of four
wise men to eliminate homelessness in Finland by 2015.
The programme to reduce long-term homelessness targets just some homeless people.
Assessed on the basis of social, health and financial circumstances, this is the hard
core of homelessness. The programme to reduce long-term homelessness focuses on
the 10 biggest urban growth centres, where most of the homeless are to be found. The
main priority, however, is the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, and especially Helsinki itself,
where long-term homelessness is concentrated.
Page 185 of 289

The programme is structured around the housing first principle. Solutions to social and
health problems cannot be a condition for organising accommodation: on the contrary,
accommodation is a requirement which also allows other problems of people who have
been homeless to be solved. Having somewhere to live makes it possible to strengthen
life management skills and is conducive to purposeful activity.
Because of all the reasons there are for long-term homelessness, if it is to be cut there
need to be simultaneous measures at different levels, i.e. universal housing and social
policy measures, the prevention of homelessness and targeted action to reduce longterm
homelessness.
The programme’s objectives are:
To halve long-term homelessness by 2011
To eliminate homelessness entirely by 2015
More effective measures to prevent homelessness
France
The French government launched a Housing First-like program in France in 2010 in 4
major cities - Toulouse, Marseille, Lille and Paris - called "Un chez-Soi d'abord". It
follows the same principles as the Canadian and US programs: it is focused on
homeless people with mental illness or addicted to drugs or alcohol. The plan is on a
three-year basis for each individual, living in accommodation provided by an NGO.
Clients are given any needed help with social issues and medical care. The first houses
have been working in three cities since 2011 and a hundred apartments have been
planned in Paris starting in May 2012.
Several NGOs are involved in this trial. They provide rental management and social
support for tenants.
Those NGOs are linked with scientists investigating the results of the experiment and
serve as a relay for information and status reports on the targeted public. The lead team
of "Un chez-soi d'abord" is expecting results to be published around 2017.
Japan
Though homeless support groups like non-profit
organization Moyai, Bigissue, Médecins du Monde Japan have requested Housing First,
Japanese government does not have a Housing First program yet. Traditionally, the
government offers public housing so-called Koei-jutaku for low-income people by public
housing law and it is run by local government. Rent fees are subject to change
according to household income. Because applicants must be selected by lottery, lowincome
people cannot live in the housing soon though they have an advantage. There
Page 186 of 289

are a couple of Housing First-like programs. Non-profit organization
Littleones renovates discarded or empty homes and they rent the rooms to single
mothers with financial and occupational support. Tsukuroi Tokyo fund advocates a
housing first and they built a shelter specially for homeless people.
United Kingdom
The UK government announced plans for a Housing First pilot programme in the West
Midlands, Liverpool, and Manchester, along with funding of £28m. This followed
publication of a report entitled Housing First by the Centre for Social Justice which cited
the results from the Finnish application of Housing First.
Criticism of
Housing First
One-Size-Fits-
All
Ralph DaCosta
Nunez, the
President and
CEO of the
Institute for
Children, Poverty
and
Homelessness
(ICPH), who is
also a Professor
at Columbia
University, predicted this one-size-fits-all is destined to fail as statistics in New York City
prove. Dr. Nunez described the approach as "'public stupidity'" rather than "'public
policy'". He also complained that Housing First "is all that’s left after the other poverty
fighting programs have been underfunded or eliminated." Nunez advocates for a three
tiered approach to addressing homelessness with Housing First as only the first
component of that approach.
Following Panelák: A Failed Communist Model
Sharam Kohan, a social policy expert and economist, compared the Housing First
model to Panelák of the former communist countries that tried to end homelessness by
providing permanent and unconditional public housing. Dr. Kohan criticized Housing
First model for following Panelák's failed philosophy and approaches. Dr. Kohan points
to a growing number of reports from communities that have implemented Housing First
programs which are "credited with creating slums and slumlord."
Page 187 of 289

Limits of Evidence Based Policy
On July 31, 2011, Prof. Victoria Stanhope, Ph.D., of New York University School of
Social Work and Prof. Kerry Dunn, J.D., Ph.D., of University of New England School of
Social Work, published “The curious case of Housing First; The limits of evidence-based
policy” in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Drs. Stanhope and Dunn
gave an overview of evidence-based policy and presented “critiques based on its
reliance on positivist methods and technical approach to policy making. Using these
critiques as a framework, the paper discusse[d] the case of Housing First, a policy
adopted by the Bush Administration in order to address the problem of chronic
homelessness.” According to Drs. Stanhope and Dunn, the Housing First “is an
example of research-driven policy making but also resulted in a progressive policy being
promoted by a conservative administration. In discussing the case, the paper elaborates
on the relationship between evidence and policy, arguing that evidence-based policy
fails to integrate evidence and values into policy deliberations. The paper concludes
with alternative models of policy decision-making and their implications for research.”
Housing First has been criticized on its failure to address broader service outcomes,
namely substance abuse (in one case, it was argued that the only reason substance
abuse outcomes were no worse was that the residents were not severely
addicted). These criticisms have been rebutted on the grounds that Housing First is a
program to end homelessness not to reduce substance abuse, though more recent
research indicates it is more effective than traditional approaches in this regard as
well. This exchange highlights the way in which the selection of outcomes sets both the
terms of the debate and the parameters of “what works.” Embedded in that mantra are a
priori decisions about what constitutes working and for whom; in this case it was stable
housing for the chronic homeless.
According to Stanhope, Housing First “asserts a right to housing. Such a material right
is an anathema to neoliberal ideology and challenges deeply held beliefs that have
shaped US welfare from its inception: That no one has a right to a government benefit
unless they have proved themselves to be deserving or worthy (e.g., "TANF"), or have
earned it (e.g., social insurance).”
________
Page 188 of 289

X. The Advocacy Foundation
Balanced Home-Mortgage Initiative
The Flexible, Income-Based, Unlimited-Term, Strategic Mortgage.
by John C Johnson III
We have a better idea! We call it The Flexible, Income-Based, Unlimited-Term,
Strategic Mortgage.
Here’s how our formula works:
1. First We Determine The Value of the Home, and That’s
What Sets the Foundation for Payment
Real Estate Appraisal, Property Valuation or Land Valuation is
the process of developing an opinion of value for real property (usually market value).
Real estate transactions often require appraisals because they occur infrequently and
every property is unique (especially their location, a key factor in valuation), unlike
corporate stocks, which are traded daily and are identical (thus a centralized Walrasian
auction like a stock exchange is unrealistic). Appraisal reports form the basis for
mortgage loans, settling estates and divorces, taxation, and so on. Sometimes an
appraisal report is used to set the sale price of a property.
Most, but not all, countries require
appraisers to be licensed or certified.
Appraisers are often known as "property
valuers" or "land valuers"; in British English
they are "valuation surveyors". If the
appraiser's opinion is based on market
value, then it must also be based on the
highest and best use of the real property. In
the United States, mortgage valuations of
improved residential properties are generally
reported on a standardized form like the
Uniform Residential Appraisal Report. Appraisals of more complex properties (e.g.,
income-producing, raw land) are often reported in narrative format.
Types of Value
There are several types and definitions of value sought by a real estate appraisal. Some
of the most common are:
Page 189 of 289

Market value – The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive
Walrasian auction setting. Market value is usually interchangeable with open
market value or fair value. International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
Market value – the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should
exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an
arm's length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each
acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.
Value-in-use, or use value – The net present value (NPV) of a cash flow that an
asset generates for a specific owner under a specific use. Value-in-use is the
value to one particular user, and may be above or below the market value of a
property.
Investment value – is the value to one particular investor, and may or may not
be higher than the market value of a property. Differences between the
investment value of an asset and its market value provide the motivation for
buyers or sellers to enter the marketplace. International Valuation Standards
(IVS) define:
Investment value – the value of an asset to the owner or a prospective owner
for individual investment or operational objectives.
Insurable Value – is the value of real property covered by an insurance policy.
Generally it does not include the site value.
Liquidation Value – may be analyzed as either a forced liquidation or an
orderly liquidation and is a commonly sought standard of value in bankruptcy
proceedings. It assumes a seller who is compelled to sell after an exposure
period which is less than the market-normal time-frame.
Price versus Value
There can be differences between what the property is really worth (market value) and
what it cost to buy it (price). A price paid might not represent that property's market
value. Sometimes, special considerations may have been present, such as a special
relationship between the buyer and the seller where one party had control or significant
influence over the other party. In other cases, the transaction may have been just one of
several properties sold or traded between two parties. In such cases, the price paid for
any particular piece is not its market "value" (with the idea usually being, though, that all
the pieces and prices add up to market value of all the parts) but rather its market
"price".
At other times, a buyer may willingly pay a premium price, above the generally accepted
market value, if his subjective valuation of the property (its investment value for him)
was higher than the market value. One specific example of this is an owner of a
Page 190 of 289

neighboring property who, by combining his own property with the subject property,
could obtain economies-of-scale. Similar situations sometimes happen in corporate
finance. For example, this can occur when a merger or acquisition happens at a price
which is higher than the value represented by the price of the underlying stock. The
usual explanation for these types of mergers and acquisitions is that "the sum is greater
than its parts", since full ownership of a company provides full control of it. This is
something that purchasers will sometimes pay a high price for. This situation can
happen in real estate purchases too.
But the most common reason for value differing from price is that either the buyer or the
seller is uninformed as to what a property's market value is but nevertheless agrees on
a contract at a certain price which is either too expensive or too cheap. This is
unfortunate for one of the two parties. It is the obligation of a real property appraiser to
estimate the true market value of a property and not its market price.
Market Value Definitions in The United States
In the United States, appraisals are for a certain type of value (e.g., foreclosure value,
fair market value, distressed sale value, investment value). The most commonly used
definition of value is Market Value. While Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) does not define Market Value, it provides general guidance for how
Market Value should be defined:
A type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer of a property (i.e., a
right of ownership or a bundle of such rights), as of a certain date, under specific
conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as applicable
in an appraisal.
Thus, the definition of value used in an appraisal or Current Market Analysis (CMA)
analysis and report is a set of assumptions about the market in which the subject
property may transact. It affects the choice of comparable data for use in the analysis. It
can also affect the method used to value the property. For example, tree value can
contribute up to 27% of property value.
Page 191 of 289

Three Approaches to Value
There are three traditional groups of methodologies for determining value. These are
usually referred to as the "three approaches to value" which are generally independent
of each other:
The cost approach (the buyer will not pay more for a property than it would cost
to build an equivalent).
The sales comparison approach (comparing a property's characteristics with
those of comparable properties that have recently sold in similar transactions).
The income approach (similar to the methods used for financial valuation,
securities analysis or bond pricing).
However, the recent trend of the business tends to be toward the use of a scientific
methodology of appraisal which relies on the foundation of quantitative-data, risk, and
geographical based approaches. Pagourtzi et al. have provided a review on the
methods used in the industry by comparison between conventional approaches and
advanced ones.
As mentioned before, an appraiser can generally choose from three approaches to
determine value. One or two of these approaches will usually be most applicable, with
the other approach or approaches usually being less useful. The appraiser has to think
about the "scope of work", the type of value, the property itself, and the quality and
quantity of data available for each approach. No overarching statement can be made
that one approach or another is always better than one of the other approaches.
The appraiser has to think about the way that most buyers usually buy a given type of
property. What appraisal method do most buyers use for the type of property being
valued? This generally guides the appraiser's thinking on the best valuation method, in
conjunction with the available data. For instance, appraisals of properties that are
typically purchased by investors (e.g., skyscrapers, office buildings) may give greater
weight to the Income Approach. Buyers interested in purchasing single family residential
property would rather compare price, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach
(market analysis approach) would be more applicable. The third and final approach to
value is the Cost Approach to value. The Cost Approach to value is most useful in
determining insurable value, and cost to construct a new structure or building.
For example, single apartment buildings of a given quality tend to sell at a particular
price per apartment. In many of those cases, the sales comparison approach may be
more applicable. On the other hand, a multiple-building apartment complex would
usually be valued by the income approach, as that would follow how most buyers would
value it. As another example, single-family houses are most commonly valued with
greatest weighting to the sales comparison approach. However, if a single-family
dwelling is in a neighborhood where all or most of the dwellings are rental units, then
some variant of the income approach may be more useful. So the choice of valuation
Page 192 of 289

method can change depending upon the circumstances, even if the property being
valued does not change much.
The Cost Approach
The Cost Approach was once called the summation approach. The theory is that the
value of a property can be estimated by summing the land value and the depreciated
value of any improvements. The value of the improvements is often referred to by the
abbreviation RCNLD (for "reproduction/replacement cost new less depreciation").
Reproduction refers to reproducing an exact replica; replacement cost refers to the cost
of building a house or other improvement which has the same utility, but using modern
design, workmanship and materials. In practice, appraisers almost always use
replacement cost and then deduct a factor for any functional dis-utility associated with
the age of the subject property. An exception to the general rule of using the
replacement cost, is for some insurance value appraisals. In those cases, reproduction
of the exact asset after a destructive event like a fire is the goal.
In most instances when the cost approach is involved, the overall methodology is a
hybrid of the cost and sales comparison approaches (representing both the suppliers'
costs and the prices that customers are seeking). For example, the replacement cost to
construct a building can be determined by adding the labor, material, and other costs.
On the other hand, land values and depreciation must be derived from an analysis of
comparable sales data.
Page 193 of 289

The cost approach is considered most reliable when used on newer structures, but the
method tends to become less reliable for older properties. The cost approach is often
the only reliable approach when dealing with special use properties (e.g., public
assembly, marinas).
The Sales Comparison Approach
The sales comparison approach is based primarily on the principle of substitution. This
approach assumes a prudent (or rational) individual will pay no more for a property than
it would cost to purchase a comparable substitute property. The approach recognizes
that a typical buyer will compare asking prices and seek to purchase the property that
meets his or her wants and needs for the lowest cost. In developing the sales
comparison approach, the appraiser attempts to interpret and measure the actions of
parties involved in the marketplace, including buyers, sellers, and investors.
Data Collection Methods and Valuation Process
Data is collected on recent sales of properties similar to the subject being valued, called
"comparables". Only SOLD properties may be used in an appraisal and determination of
a property's value, as they represent amounts actually paid or agreed upon for
properties. Sources of comparable data include real estate publications, public records,
buyers, sellers, real estate brokers and/or agents, appraisers, and so on. Important
details of each comparable sale are described in the appraisal report. Since comparable
sales are not identical to the subject property, adjustments may be made for date of
sale, location, style, amenities, square footage, site size, etc. The main idea is to
simulate the price that would have been paid if each comparable sale were identical to
the subject property. If the comparable is superior to the subject in a factor or aspect,
then a downward adjustment is needed for that factor. Likewise, if the comparable is
inferior to the subject in an aspect, then an upward adjustment for that aspect is
needed. The adjustment is somewhat subjective and relies on the appraiser's training
and experience. From the analysis of the group of adjusted sales prices of the
comparable sales, the appraiser selects an indicator of value that is representative of
the subject property. It is possible for various appraisers to choose different indicator of
value which ultimately will provide different property value.
Steps in The Sales Comparison Approach
Research the market to obtain information pertaining to sales, and pending sales
that are similar to the subject property
2. Investigate the market data to determine whether they are factually correct and
accurate
Determine relevant units of comparison (e.g., sales price per square foot), and
develop a comparative analysis for each
Compare the subject and comparable sales according to the elements of
comparison and adjust as appropriate
Page 194 of 289

Reconcile the multiple value indications that result from the adjustment (upward
or downward) of the comparable sales into a single value indication
The Income Capitalization Approach
The income capitalization approach (often referred to simply as the "income
approach") is used to value commercial and investment properties. Because it is
intended to directly reflect or model the expectations and behaviors of typical market
participants, this approach is generally considered the most applicable valuation
technique for income-producing properties, where sufficient market data exists.
In a
commercial
incomeproducing
property this
approach
capitalizes an
income
stream into a
value
indication.
This can be
done using
revenue
multipliers or
capitalization
rates applied
to a Net
Operating
Income
(NOI).
Usually, an NOI has been stabilized so as not to place too much weight on a very recent
event. An example of this is an unleased building which, technically, has no NOI. A
stabilized NOI would assume that the building is leased at a normal rate, and to usual
occupancy levels. The Net Operating Income (NOI) is gross potential income (GPI), less
vacancy and collection loss (= Effective Gross Income) less operating expenses (but
excluding debt service, income taxes, and/or depreciation charges applied by
accountants).
Alternatively, multiple years of net operating income can be valued by a discounted
cash flow analysis (DCF) model. The DCF model is widely used to value larger and
more expensive income-producing properties, such as large office towers or major
shopping centers. This technique applies market-supported yields (or discount rates) to
projected future cash flows (such as annual income figures and typically a lump
reversion from the eventual sale of the property) to arrive at a present value indication.
Page 195 of 289

UK Valuation Methods
In the United Kingdom, valuation methodology has traditionally been classified into five
methods: [11]
1. Comparative method. Used for most types of property where there is good evidence
of previous sales. This is analogous to the sales comparison approach outlined above.
2. Investment method. Used for most commercial (and residential) property that is
producing future cash flows through the letting of the property. If the current estimated
rental value (ERV) and the passing income are known, as well as the marketdetermined
equivalent yield, then the property value can be determined by means of a
simple model. Note that this method is really a comparison method, since the main
variables are determined in the market. In standard U.S. practice, however, the closely
related capitalizing of NOI is confounded with the DCF method under the general
classification of the income capitalization approach (see above).
3. Residual method. Used for properties ripe for development or redevelopment or for
bare land only.
4. Profit method. Used for trading properties where evidence of rates is slight, such as
hotels, restaurants and old-age homes. A three-year average of operating income
(derived from the profit and loss or income statement) is capitalized using an
appropriate yield. Note that since the variables used are inherent to the property and
are not market-derived, therefore unless appropriate adjustments are made, the
resulting value will be value-in-use or investment value, not market value.
5. Cost method. Used for land and buildings of special character for which profit figures
cannot be obtained or land and buildings for which there is no market because of their
public service or heritage characteristics. Both the residual method and the cost method
would be grouped in the United States under the cost approach (see above).
Under the current RICS Valuation Standards, the following bases of value are
recognized:
Market value (see PS 3.2);
Market rent (see PS 3.3);
Worth (investment value) (see PS 3.4); and
Fair value (see PS 3.5)
Scope of Work
Further Considerations
While the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) has always
required appraisers to identify the scope of work needed to produce credible results, it
Page 196 of 289

ecame clear in recent years that appraisers did not fully understand the process for
developing this adequately. In formulating the scope of work for a credible appraisal, the
concept of a limited versus complete appraisal and the use of the Departure Rule
caused confusion to clients, appraisers, and appraisal reviewers. In order to deal with
this, USPAP was updated in 2006 with what came to be known as the Scope of Work
Project. Following this, USPAP eliminated both the Departure Rule and the concept of a
limited appraisal, and a new Scope of Work rule was created. In this, appraisers were to
identify six key parts of the appraisal problem at the beginning of each assignment:
Client and other intended users
Intended use of the appraisal and appraisal report
Definition of value (e.g., market, foreclosure, investment)
Any hypothetical conditions or extraordinary assumptions
Effective date of the appraisal analysis
Salient features of the subject property
Based on these factors, the appraiser must identify the scope of work needed, including
the methodologies to be used, the extent of investigation, and the applicable
approaches to value. Currently, minimum standards for scope of work are:
Expectations of the client and other users
The actions of the appraiser's peers who carry out similar assignments
The scope of work is the first step in any appraisal process. Without a strictly defined
scope of work, an appraisal's conclusions may not be viable. By defining the scope of
work, an appraiser can properly develop a value for a given property for the intended
user, and for the intended use of the appraisal. The whole idea of "scope of work" is to
provide clear expectations and guidelines for all parties as to what the appraisal report
does, and does not, cover; and how much work has gone into it.
Page 197 of 289

Types of Ownership Interest
The type of real estate "interest" that is being valued, must also be known and stated in
the report. Usually, for most sales, or mortgage financings, the fee simple interest is
being valued. The fee simple interest is the most complete bundle of rights available.
However, in many situations, and in many societies which do not follow English
Common Law or the Napoleonic Code, some other interest may be more common.
While there are many different possible interests in real estate, the three most common
are:
Fee Simple Value (known in the UK as freehold) – The most complete
ownership in real estate, subject in common law countries to the powers
reserved to the state (taxation, escheat, eminent domain, and police power)
Leased Fee Value – This is simply the fee simple interest encumbered by a
lease. If the lease is at market rent, then the leased fee value and the fee simple
value are equal. However, if the tenant pays more or less than market, the
residual owned by the leased fee holder, plus the market value of the tenancy,
may be more or less than the fee simple value.
Leasehold Value – The interest held by a tenant. If the tenant pays market rent,
then the leasehold has no market value. However, if the tenant pays less than
market, the difference between the present value of what is paid and the present
value of market rents would be a positive leasehold value. For example, a major
chain retailer may be able to negotiate a below-market lease to serve as the
anchor tenant for a shopping center. This leasehold value may be transferable to
another anchor tenant, and if so the retail tenant has a positive interest in the real
estate.
Home Inspection
If a home inspection is performed prior to the appraisal and that report is provided to the
appraiser, a more useful appraisal can result. This is because the appraiser, who is not
expert home inspector, will be told if there are substantial construction defects or major
repairs required. This information can cause the appraiser to arrive at a different,
probably lower, opinion of value. This information may be particularly helpful if one or
both of the parties requesting the appraisal may end up in possession of the property.
This is sometimes the case with property in a divorce settlement or a legal judgment.
Real Estate Appraisal Data Entry
Appraisers provide all the data needed to input in appraisal reports. A data entry team
does the rest; it searches, consolidates and types the data into reports, such as subject
data and comparable grid prior sales history. Most data entry organisations work 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. The appraiser sends empty reports, and
Page 198 of 289

the data entry team works all day and night, even while the appraiser is sleeping. This
process increases the appraiser's efficiency, and frees up his/her time.
Mass Appraisal and Automated Valuation Models
Automated valuation models (AVMs) are growing in acceptance. These rely on
statistical models such as multiple regression analysis or geographic information
systems (GIS). While AVMs can be quite accurate, particularly when used in a very
homogeneous area, there is also evidence that AVMs are not accurate in other
instances such as when they are used in rural areas, or when the appraised property
does not conform well to the neighborhood.
Governing
Authorities and
Professional
Organizations
International
The various U.S.
appraisal groups and
international professional
appraisal organizations
have started collaborating
in recent years towards
the development of
International Valuation
Standards. This will facilitate global real estate appraisal standards, a much-needed
adjunct to real estate investment portfolios which cross national boundaries. Some
appraisal groups are already international organizations and thus, to some extent,
already incorporate some level of global standards.
The International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) is a non-governmental
organization (NGO) member of the United Nations with membership that encompasses
all the major national valuation standard-setters and professional associations from 41
different countries (including the Appraisal Institute, the American Society of Appraisers,
the RICS, the [Practising Valuers Association of India] and the Appraisal Institute of
Canada). IVSC publishes the International Valuation Standards (IVS), now in its 8th
edition.
Germany
In Germany, real estate appraisal is known as real estate valuation
(Immobilienbewertung). Real estate appraisers (Immobilienbewerter or Gutachter) can
qualify to become a Öffentlich bestellter und vereidigter Sachverständiger (officially
Page 199 of 289

appointed and sworn expert). However, this formerly very important title has lost a lot of
its importance over the past years, but still is of some value in court procedures. The
title is not generally required for appraisals.
Governing Authorities
Real estate appraisal in Germany is partly codified by law. The federal Baugesetzbuch
(abbr. BauGB, "German statutory code on building and construction'") contains
guidelines on governing authorities, defines the term market value and refers to
continuative rules (chapter 3, articles 192 ff.). Each municipality (city or administrative
district) must form a Gutachterausschuss (appraisal committee), consisting of a
chairman and honorary members. The committee gathers information on all real estate
deals (it is mandatory to send a copy of each notarial purchase contract to the
Gutachterausschuss) and includes it in the Kaufpreissammlung (purchase price
database). Most committees publish an official real estate market report every two
years, in which besides other information on comparables the land value is determined.
The committees also perform appraisals on behalf of public authorities.
Federal Regulations
The BauGB defines the Verkehrswert or Marktwert (market value, both terms with
identical meaning) as follows: "The market value is determined by the price that can be
realized at the date of valuation, in an arm's length transaction, with due regard to the
legal situation and the effective characteristics, the nature and lay of the premises or
any other subject of the valuation" (non-official translation). The intention, as in other
countries, is to include all objective influences and to exclude all influences resulting
from the subjective circumstances of the involved parties.
This federal law is supported by the Wertermittlungsverordnung (abbr. WertV,
"regulation on the determination of value"). The WertV defines the codified valuation
approaches and the general valuation technique. German codified valuation
approaches (other approaches such as DCF or residual approach are also permitted,
but not codified) are the:
Vergleichswertverfahren (sales comparison approach) – used where good
evidence of previous sales is available and for owner-occupied assets, especially
condominiums and single-family houses;
Ertragswertverfahren (German income approach) – standard procedure for
property that produces future cash flows from the letting of the property;
Sachwertverfahren (German cost approach) – used for specialised property
where none of the above approaches applies, e. g. public buildings.
WertV's general regulations are further supported by the Wertermittlungsrichtlinie (abbr.
WertR, "directive on the determination of value"). The WertR provides templates for
Page 200 of 289

calculations, tables (e.g., economic depreciation) and guidelines for the consideration of
different influences. WertV and WertR are not binding for appraisals for nonofficial use,
nonetheless they should be regarded as best practice or Generally Accepted (German)
Valuation Practice (GAVP).
Comments on German GAVP
In most regards Generally Accepted (German) Valuation Principles is consistent with
international practice. The investment market weighs the income approach most
heavily. However, there are some important differences:
Land and improvements are treated separately. German GAVP assumes that the
land can be used indefinitely, but the buildings have a limited lifespan; This
coincides with the balancing of the assets. The value of the land is determined by
the sales comparison approach in both the income and cost approaches, using
the data accumulated by the Gutachterausschuss which is then added to the
building value.
In order to account for the usage of the land, the net operating income is reduced
by the Liegenschaftszins (interest paid to the land-owner by the owner of the
building, i.e., ground rent). The Liegenschaftszins is the product of the land value
and the Liegenschaftszinssatz (interest rate for land use). The
Liegenschaftszinssatz is the equivalent of the yield—with some important
differences—and is also determined by the Gutachterausschuss.
Unlike the All Risks Yield (ARY) in UK practice, the Liegenschaftszinssatz (abbr.
LZ) does not include an allowance for default (not to be confused with structural
vacancy), therefore this needs to be subtracted from gross operating income. As
a result, the Liegenschaftszinssatz will usually be lower than the All Risks Yield.
Based on the assumption that the economic life of the improvements is limited,
the yield and remaining economic life determine the building value from the net
operating income.
Contracts in Germany generally prescribe that the landlord bears a higher portion
of maintenance and operating costs than their counterparts in the United States
and UK.
Criticism
Mathematically the distinction between land and improvements in the income approach
will have no impact on the overall value when the remaining economic life is more than
thirty years. For this reason it has become quite common to use the Vereinfachtes
Ertragswertverfahren (simplified income approach), omitting the land value and the
Liegenschaftszins. However, the separate treatment of land and buildings leads to more
Page 201 of 289

precise results for older buildings, especially for commercial buildings, which typically
have a shorter economic life than residential buildings.
An advantage of the comparatively high degree of standardization practiced by
professional appraisers, is the greater ability to check an appraisal for inconsistency,
accuracy and transparency.
Professional Organizations
The Federal German Organisation of Appointed and Sworn Experts (Bundesverband
Deutscher Sachverständiger und Fachgutachter, abbr. BDSF) is the main professional
organization encompassing the majority of licensed appraisers in Germany. In recent
years, with the move towards a more global outlook in the valuation profession, the
RICS has gained a foothold in Germany, somewhat at the expense of the BDSF.
Another German Organisation of Appointed and Sworn Experts ist the (Deutsche
Sachverständigen Gesellschaft, abbr. DESAG) This organization also includes a large
number of licensed appraisers in Germany.
With special focus on hypothetical value, in 1996, German banks with real estate
financing activities formed the HypZert GmbH, an association for the certification of real
estate valuers. A HypZert qualification is regarded as mandatory by many German
banks.
Israel
In Israel, the real estate appraisal profession is regulated by the Council of Land
Valuers, an organ of the Ministry of Justice; the largest professional organization,
encompassing the majority of appraisers/land valuers is the Association of Land
Valuers. Valuers must be registered with the Council, which is a statutory body set up
by law, and which oversees the training and administers the national professional
exams that are a prerequisite for attaining registration. In 2005 the Council set up a
Valuation Standards Committee with the purpose of developing and promulgating
standards that would reflect best practice; these have tended to follow a rules-based
approach.
Historically, most valuations in Israel were statutory valuations (such as valuations
performed for purposes of Betterment Tax, a tax administered on any gains accruing to
the property by way of changes to the local planning) as well as valuations performed
for purposes of bank lending. Since Israel implemented the International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2008, the profession has been engaged in performing
valuations for purposes of financial reporting.
United Kingdom
In the UK, real estate appraisal is known as property valuation and a real estate
appraiser is a land valuer or property valuer (usually a qualified chartered surveyor who
Page 202 of 289

specializes in property valuation). Property valuation in the UK is regulated by the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), a professional body encompassing all of the
building and property-related professions. The RICS professional guidelines for valuers
are published in what is commonly known as the Red Book. The 2011 version was the
RICS Valuation Standards 7th Edition (2 May 2011), superseding an edition published
in 2007 with later amendments. The RICS Valuation Standards contains mandatory
rules, best practice guidance and related commentary. Changes to the standards are
approved by the RICS Valuation Professional Group Board, and the Red Book is
updated accordingly on a regular basis. While based in the UK, RICS is a global
organization and has become very active in the United States in recent years through its
affiliation with the Counselors of Real Estate, a division of the National Association of
Realtors.
United States
Appraisal practice in the United States
is regulated by state. The Appraisal
Foundation (TAF) is the primary
standards body; its Appraisal Standards
Board (ASB) promulgates and updates
best practices as codified in the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP), while its Appraisal
Qualifications Board (AQB) promulgates
minimum standards for appraiser
certification and licensing.
The federal government regulates appraisers indirectly because if the Appraisal
Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)
finds that a particular state's appraiser regulation and certification program is
inadequate, then under federal regulations all appraisers in that state would no longer
be eligible to conduct appraisals for federally chartered banks. The ASC oversees the
TAF. Banks make widespread use of mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities,
and would be unable to do so without appraisals.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA)
demanded all the states to develop systems for licensing and certifying real estate
appraisers. To accomplish this, the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) was formed within
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), with representatives
from the various Federal mortgage regulatory agencies. Thus, currently all the real
estate appraisers must be state-licensed and certified. But prior to the 1990s, there
were no commonly accepted standards either for appraisal quality or for appraiser
licensure. In the 1980s, an ad-hoc committee representing various appraisal
professional organizations in the United States and Canada met to codify the best
practices into what became known as the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP). The U.S. Savings and Loan Crisis resulted in increased federal
Page 203 of 289

egulation via the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989,
which required federal lending regulators to adopt appraisal standards. A nonprofit
organization, The Appraisal Foundation (TAF), was formed by the same organizations
that had developed USPAP, and the copyright for USPAP was signed over to TAF.
Federal oversight of TAF is provided by the Appraisal Subcommittee, made up of
representatives of various federal lending regulators. TAF carries out its work through
two boards: the Appraisal Standards Board promulgates and updates USPAP; the
Appraisal Qualifications Board (AQB) promulgates minimum recommended standards
for appraiser certification and licensure. During the 1990s, all of the states adopted
USPAP as the governing standards within their states and developed licensure
standards which met or exceeded the recommendations of TAF. Also, the various state
and federal courts have adopted USPAP for real estate litigation and all of the federally
lending regulators adopt USPAP for mortgage finance appraisal.
Professional Organizations
In addition, there are professional appraisal organizations, organized as private
nonprofit organizations that date to the Great Depression of the 1930s. One of the
oldest in the United States is the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural
Appraisers (ASFMRA), which was founded in 1929. Others were founded as needed
and opportunity arose in specialized fields, such as the Appraisal Institute (AI) and the
American Society of Appraisers (ASA) founded in the 1930s, the International Right of
Way Association and the National Association of Realtors which were founded after
World War II. These organizations all existed to establish and enforce standards, but
their influence waned with increasing government regulation. In March 2007, three of
these organizations (ASFMRA, ASA, and AI) announced an agreement in principle to
merge. NAIFA (National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers), a charter member
of The Appraisal Foundation, helped to write Title XI, the Real Estate Appraisal Reform
Amendments. It was founded in 1961.
One of the most recognized professional organizations of real estate appraisers in
America is the Appraisal Institute (AI). It was formed from the merger of the American
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. Founded
along with others in the 1930s, the two organizations merged in the 1990s to form the
AI. This group awards two professional designations: SRA, to residential appraisers,
and MAI, to commercial appraisers. The Institute has enacted rigorous regulations
regarding the use and display of these designations. For example, contrary to popular
belief, "MAI" does not stand for "Member, Appraisal Institute". According to the institute,
the letters "do not represent specific words", and an MAI may not use the words
"Member, Appraisal Institute" in lieu of the MAI mark. The primary motive for this rule is
to prevent trademark dilution.
The National Association of Appraisers (NAA) is the fastest growing appraiser
organization in the United States and was formed with a purpose of uniting ALL those
engaged in the appraisal profession for the purpose of exerting a beneficial influence
upon the profession and to advocate appraiser interests. The NAA has established an
Page 204 of 289

advisory group consisting of leadership at the state organizations and coalitions called
the Board of Governors where those states can help guide the NAA in acting in the best
interest of all appraisers. The NAA also has a designated membership, MNAA (Member
of the National Association of Appraisers, who is an individual who holds an appraisal
license, certification or similar appraisal credential issued by a governmental agency;
and who accepts the membership requirements and objectives of the National
Association of Appraisers.
Other leading appraisal
organizations include the
National Association of
Independent Fee Appraisers
and the National Association of
Master Appraisers, which were
also founding sponsormembers
of the Appraisal
Foundation.
The
Massachusetts Board of Real
Estate Appraisers (MBREA),
founded in 1934, is the only
state appraisal association that
has been named a sponsor of
the Appraisal Foundation. In
recent years, the Royal
Institution of Chartered
Surveyors (RICS) has become highly regarded in the United States, and has formed a
collaboration with the Counselors of Real Estate, a division of the National Association
of Realtors. RICS, which is headquartered in London, operates on a global scale and
awards the designations MRICS and FRICS to Members and Fellows of RICS. The
Real Estate Counseling Group of America is a small group of top U.S. appraisers and
real estate analysts who have collectively authored a disproportionately large body of
appraisal methodology and, the National Association of Real Estate Appraisers
(NAREA), founded in 1966, with the goal to elevate the professionalism and success of
the Appraisal Industry.
The leading appraisal organization for personal property valuation is the American
Society of Appraisers which is a sponsor member of the Appraisal Foundation and
awards the ASA (Accredited Senior Appraiser) designation to candidates who complete
five years of documented appraisal experience, pass a comprehensive exam along with
required commercial and/or residential appraisal coursework, and submit two appraisal
reports for review.
Russia
In Russia, on par with many other former Soviet Union economies, the profession
emerged in the first half of 1990, and represented a clean break with the former practice
Page 205 of 289

of industry-specific pricing specialists and with activities of statutory price-setting
authorities in the Soviet Union. Currently, property valuation, as it is called, is a
specialism within general-purpose "valuation profession", which functions in a selfregulatory
mode overseen by "self-regulated professional organizations" of valuers
(SROs),i.e. public supervisory entities established under provisions of special legislation
(which very loosely can be likened to trade unions). The principal among those is
Russian Society of Appraisers, established in 1993 and presently exercising oversight
over about half of the valuation profession membership. Among its 6000+ members a
sizeable majority are real property valuers, rubbing shoulders with business and
intangible assets appraisers. The latter categories of valuers are also allowed to value
property, though valuation professionals tend to specialize. Valuers in Russia, including
real property valuers, are individuals maintaining their SRO membership and bearing
unlimited property liability for the result of their services, that is their professional status
is modeled on the organization of public notaries. Regardless of the fact, over 80% of
valuers tend to be employed by valuation or consulting companies, and thus do not
enter practice as stand-alone individual entrepreneurs. High-end appraisal services are
principally represented by valuation arms of the International "Big-four" consultancies in
the country, but there also exist reputable national corporate valuation brands. Most of
valuations in the country tend to be performed for statutory purposes envisaged by the
Federal Valuation Law (latest amendment in 2013) and other related laws, such as the
Joint Stock Companies Law. Such pieces of legislation provide for more than 20 socalled
"mandatory cases of valuation", including valuations for privatization purposes,
lending purposes, bankruptcy and liquidation etc. Valuations for corporate accounts
used to be much more prominent before 2000, when the national accounting regulator
ceased to incentivize the accounting fair value option. At present, the mass appraisal of
property for taxation purposes is also starting to be outsourced by the Government to
the institution of professional valuers. Adjudication of valuer-certified estimates of value
in case of the onset of disputes is conducted through the Experts Councils of valuers'
SROs. Official courts tend to concur with the resolutions of such Councils. In some rare
instances the imprimatur of SRO's Experts Councils is also required for a valuation
done by a particular valuer to enter into effect. The technical details of practice of real
estate valuers in Russia are aligned with the international pattern. Members of the
Russian Society of Appraisers are bound by the observance of the International
Valuation Standards. There also exists a set of three general-purpose governmentdeveloped
"Federal Valuation Standards" (FSO 1,2,3 adopted in 2007, with the latest
standard in the set dealing with valuation of real estate—FSO 7-- adopted in late 2014)
which prescribe a required uniform structure for valuation reports.
Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (HKIS) regulates property surveyors in Hong
Kong. Established in 1984, Institute is the only professional organization representing
the surveying profession in Hong Kong. The HKIS was statutorily incorporated by virtue
of the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors Ordinance in January 1990 (Cap. 1148). In July
1991, the Surveyors Registration Ordinance (Cap. 417) was passed to set up a
Registration Board to administer the registration of surveyors. In May 2006, the number
Page 206 of 289

of members had reached 6,723. A general practice surveyor advises on the best use of
the land, assesses the feasibility and viability of the proposed development project as
well as the valuation, marketing, sale, leasing and management of completed
developments. It also has a website to provide real-time propertys' value estimate
across whole Hong Kong.
Australia
The Australian Property Institute (API) was formed in 1926 as the Commonwealth
Institute of Valuers. The Institute has undergone several name changes over the last
century as the array of services offered by its members expanded. It serves to regulate
the profession of property valuers Sydney, Australia.
Today the API represents the interests of more than 8,600 property professionals
throughout Australia. API members include residential, commercial and plant and
machinery valuers, property advisers, property analysts, property fund and asset
managers, property facility managers, property lawyers and property researchers and
academics. The Institute’s primary role is to set and maintain the highest standards of
professional practice, education, ethics and professional conduct for its members and
the broader property profession.
New Zealand
Real estate valuation in New Zealand is regulated by the New Zealand Institute of
Valuers ('NZIV') and the Valuers Registration Board of New Zealand ('VRB'), both of
which are statutory bodies established under the Valuers Act 1948 (NZ). The NZIV
remains the statutory professional body for valuers in New Zealand, with perpetual
succession under the Act (which is under review as at 2015). The NZIV can make Rules
as lower level legislation and has a Code of Ethics. The NZIV Rules were last changed
in 2012 and remain current. The VRB has jurisdiction in relation to serious matters
affecting the registration of a valuer including discipline where a valuer has acted in
such a way as to meet the threshold. The Valuers Act 1948 sets the threshold under
s31 as matters where a valuer could be struck off the register of valuers. The NZIV has
power for discipline for relatively more minor matters. The NZIV governs NZIV members
and has power to discipline members and fine them up to $500, admonish members or
terminate their membership. The designations "Registered Valuer" and "Public Valuer"
are legally protected under the legislation, being reserved for Valuers Registered under
the Act. The NZIV, under the Act, can admit non-valuer members (such as non-valuer
land economists).
There are also voluntary professional bodies for real estate valuation such as the Royal
Institute of Chartered Surveyors ('RICS') and the Property Institute of New Zealand
('PINZ'). Both of these bodies have a wider membership, beyond real estate valuers.
PINZ has over 2,500 members in New Zealand and overseas (such as ex-pats in the
UK, Asia and Australia). PINZ has a service level agreement with the NZIV, whereby
PINZ contracts to perform tasks for the statutory professional body, NZIV. PINZ was
Page 207 of 289

formed in in 2000 to act as the voice of the property professions. There have been
'political divisions' within the valuation profession in New Zealand, expressed at AGMs
and through 'proxy wars' over the last 20 years or so. Many valuers are supportive of
amalgamation of the NZIV functions under the multi-disciplinary voluntary body PINZ,
whilst many others wish to retain a separate statutory professional body for valuers (the
NZIV). There are various reasons in the debate and the governing legislation is under
review and amendments or repeal is being considered. At present, the Act remains in
force and the NZIV is legally a distinct body with statutory functions, powers and duties.
PINZ incorporated much of the membership of the NZIV, the Institute of Plant &
Machinery Valuers (IPMV) and the Property & Land Economy Institute of New Zealand
(PLEINZ). PINZ now represents the interests of valuers, property and facilities
managers, property advisors and plant and machinery valuers. PINZ has developed into
one of the largest professional bodies for standards, qualifications and ethics across all
facets of the property profession within New Zealand. It works with government, industry
and other professional associations, education stakeholders and the media to promote
its standards and views.
In New Zealand, the terms "valuation" and "valuer" usually relates to one who
undertakes that professional role in terms of the Valuer Act 1948 requirements or the
unregulated or voluntarily self-regulated (if members of PINZ) plant and machinery,
marine or art valuers. Whereas, the term "appraisal" is usually related to an estimate by
a real estate sales person or licensed agent under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008.
The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand includes many valuer members, but the
governing legislation for sales and agency (disposal of interests of land on behalf of
others) does not extend to include provision for that role by valuers regardless of
membership of NZIV, RICS or PINZ.
There is a key distinction between the role of a real estate agent and a valuer, as an
agent may advocate for its principal's interests, whereas a valuer must impartially and
independently provide opinion as to value. Lawyers, Conveyancers and Real Estate
Agents are permitted to act in the sale of real estate under quite different legislation
from that which governs valuers. The provision for the role in relation to Lawyers and
Conveyancers is the Lawyers and Conveyancers 2006.
In 2011 to 2015, the number of Registered Valuers in New Zealand has generally
between only around 900 to 950 each year. This is an ageing 'top heavy' professional
with difficulty retaining new and young members due to pay, work stress and the recent
advent of 'clearing houses' for banks to order valuations for mortgage purposes. The
clearing houses have largely ended the long-standing local practice of members of the
public seeking advice directly from a valuer. The use of electronic estimates based on
Rating Values (Local Government mass appraisal for levies) is also leading to a
reduction in standard valuation work and is significantly affecting the viability of small
valuation businesses. The profession is in the process of a wider corporate restructuring
of the valuation market due to these factors with various perceptions within
profession as to the merits of the events of the last five years.
Page 208 of 289

2. Next We Determine the Income of Each Partner to the
Transaction, Divide the Housing Cost, Further Divide the
Number of Mortgage Term, and That’s What Determines
the Initial Monthly Payment
Mortgage Calculators are automated tools that enable users to determine the financial
implications of changes in one or more variables in a mortgage financing arrangement.
Mortgage calculators are used by consumers to determine monthly repayments, and by
mortgage providers to determine the financial suitability of a home loan applicant.
The major variables in a mortgage calculation include loan principal, balance, periodic
compound interest rate, number of payments per year, total number of payments and
the regular payment amount. More complex calculators can take into account other
costs associated with a mortgage, such as local and state taxes, and insurance.
Mortgage calculation capabilities can be found on financial handheld calculators such
as the HP-12C or Texas Instruments TI BA II Plus. There are also multiple free online
free mortgage calculators, and software programs offering financial and mortgage
calculations.
Uses
When purchasing a new home, most buyers choose to finance a portion of the purchase
price via the use of a mortgage. Prior to the wide availability of mortgage calculators,
those wishing to understand the financial implications of changes to the five main
variables in a mortgage transaction were forced to use compound interest rate tables.
These tables generally required a working understanding of compound interest
Page 209 of 289

mathematics for proper use. In contrast, mortgage calculators make answers to
questions regarding the impact of changes in mortgage variables available to everyone.
Mortgage calculators can be used to answer such questions as:
If one borrows $250,000 at a 7% annual interest rate and pays the loan back over thirty
years, with $3,000 annual property tax payment, $1,500 annual property insurance cost
and 0.5% annual private mortgage insurance payment, what will the monthly payment
be? The answer is $2,142.42.
A potential borrower can use an online mortgage calculator to see how much property
he or she can afford. A lender will compare the person's total monthly income and total
monthly debt load. A mortgage calculator can help to add up all income sources and
compare this to all monthly debt payments. It can also factor in a potential mortgage
payment and other associated housing costs (property taxes, homeownership dues,
etc.). One can test different loan sizes and interest rates. Generally speaking, lenders
do not like to see all of a borrower's debt payments (including property expenses)
exceed around 40% of total monthly pretax income. Some mortgage lenders are known
to allow as high as 55%.
Monthly Payment Formula
The fixed monthly payment for a fixed rate mortgage is the amount paid by the borrower
every month that ensures that the loan is paid off in full with interest at the end of its
term. The monthly payment formula is based on the annuity formula. The monthly
payment c depends upon:
r - the monthly interest rate, expressed as a decimal, not a percentage. Since the
quoted yearly percentage rate is not a compounded rate, the monthly percentage
rate is simply the yearly percentage rate divided by 12; dividing the monthly
percentage rate by 100 gives r, the monthly rate expressed as a decimal.
N - the number of monthly payments, called the loan's term, and
P - the amount borrowed, known as the loan's principal.
In the standardized calculations used in the United States, c is given by the formula:
For example, for a home loan of $200,000 with a fixed yearly interest rate of 6.5% for 30
years, the principal is , the monthly interest rate is ,
the number of monthly payments is
, the fixed monthly payment
equals $1,264.14. This formula is provided using the financial function PMT in a
spreadsheet such as Excel. In the example, the monthly payment is obtained by
entering either of the these formulas:
Page 210 of 289

= -PMT(6.5 / 100 / 12, 30 * 12, 200000)
= ((6.5 / 100 / 12) * 200000) / (1 - ((1 + (6.5 / 100 / 12)) ^ (-30 * 12)))
= 1264.14
The following derivation of this formula illustrates how fixed-rate mortgage loans work.
The amount owed on the loan at the end of every month equals the amount owed from
the previous month, plus the interest on this amount, minus the fixed amount paid every
month. This fact results in the debt schedule:
Amount owed at initiation:
Amount owed after 1 month:
Amount owed after 2 months:
Amount owed after 3 months:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amount owed after N months:
The polynomial
appearing before the fixed
monthly payment c (with
) is called a cyclotomic polynomial; it has a simple
closed-form expression obtained from observing that
Page 211 of 289

ecause all but the first and last terms in this difference cancel each other out.
Therefore, solving for
yields the much simpler closed-form expression
Applying this fact about cyclotomic polynomials to the amount owed at the end of the
Nth month gives (using to succinctly denote the function value at argument
value x = (1+r )):
Amount owed at end of month N
The amount of the monthly payment at the end of month N that is applied to principal
paydown equals the amount c of payment minus the amount of interest currently paid
on the pre-existing unpaid principal. The latter amount, the interest component of the
current payment, is the interest rate r times the amount unpaid at the end of month N–1.
Since in the early years of the mortgage the unpaid principal is still large, so are the
interest payments on it; so the portion of the monthly payment going toward paying
down the principal is very small and equity in the property accumulates very slowly (in
the absence of changes in the market value of the property). But in the later years of the
mortgage, when the principal has already been substantially paid down and not much
monthly interest needs to be paid, most of the monthly payment goes toward repayment
of the principal, and the remaining principal declines rapidly.
The borrower's equity in the property equals the current market value of the property
minus the amount owed according to the above formula.
With a fixed rate mortgage, the borrower agrees to pay off the loan completely at the
end of the loan's term, so the amount owed at month N must be zero. For this to
happen, the monthly payment c can be obtained from the previous equation to obtain:
Page 212 of 289

which is the formula originally provided. This derivation illustrates three key components
of fixed-rate loans: (1) the fixed monthly payment depends upon the amount borrowed,
the interest rate, and the length of time over which the loan is repaid; (2) the amount
owed every month equals the amount owed from the previous month plus interest on
that amount, minus the fixed monthly payment; (3) the fixed monthly payment is chosen
so that the loan is paid off in full with interest at the end of its term and no more money
is owed.
Adjustable Interest Rates
While adjustable rate mortgages have been around for decades, from 2002 through
2005 adjustable-rate mortgages became more complicated as did the calculations
involved. Lending became much more creative which complicated the calculations.
Subprime lending and creative loans such as the “pick a payment”, “pay option”, and
“hybrid” loans brought on new era of mortgage calculations. The more creative
adjustable mortgages meant some changes in the calculations to specifically handle
these complicated loans. To calculate the annual percentage rates (APR) many more
variables needed to be added, including: the starting interest rate; the length of time at
that rate; the recast; the payment change; the index; the margins; the periodic interest
change cap; the payment cap; lifetime cap; the negative amortization cap; and others.
Many lenders created their own software programs, and World Savings even had
contracted special calculators to be made by Calculated Industries specifically for their
“pick a payment” program. However, by the late 2000s the Great Recession brought an
end to many of the creative “pick-a-payment” type of loans which left many borrowers
with higher loan balances over time, and owing more than their houses were worth. This
also helped reduce the more complicated calculations that went along with these
mortgages.
Mortgage Analyzer
As a recent trend since 2007, in the wake of a financial crisis that was founded on many
individuals' bad mortgage decision in residential borrowing, a new generation of
mortgage calculation tools has emerged. They are better equipped to estimate the longterm
cost and financial risk of various types of mortgages. Rather than "mortgage
calculator", the new tools have become popularly known as "mortgage analyzers". Their
main advantage is in the analysis of adjustable rate mortgages where the potential cost
and amount owing on the mortgage are estimated under thousands, sometimes
millions, of possible future mortgage rate scenarios, and then aggregate figures for
average cost and risk based on all scenarios are estimated. Conventional mortgage
calculators are capable of handling just a handful of scenarios.
Total Interest Paid Formula
The total amount of interest that will be paid over the lifetime of the loan is the
difference of the total payment amount ( ) and the loan principal ( ):
Page 213 of 289

where is the fixed monthly payment, is the number of payments that will be made,
and is the initial principal balance on the loan.
Outside the U.S.
In the United Kingdom, the FCA - Financial Conduct Authority (formerly the FSA -
Financial Services Authority) regulates loans secured on residential property. It does not
prescribe any specific calculation method, however it does prescribe that for
comparative purposes lenders must display an Annual Percentage Rate (as prominently
as other rates).
In Spain, the regulatory authority (Banco de España) has issued and enforced some
good practices, such as clearly advertising the Annual Percentage Rate and stating how
and when payments change in variable rate mortgages.
Fixed Rate Mortgages
A Fixed-Rate Mortgage (FRM), often referred to as a "vanilla wafer" mortgage loan, is
a fully amortizing mortgage loan where the interest rate on the note remains the same
through the term of the loan, as opposed to loans where the interest rate may adjust or
Page 214 of 289

"float". As a result, payment amounts and the duration of the loan are fixed and the
person who is responsible for paying back the loan benefits from a consistent, single
payment and the ability to plan a budget based on this fixed cost.
Other forms of mortgage loans include interest only mortgage, graduated payment
mortgage, variable rate mortgage (including adjustable-rate mortgages and tracker
mortgages), negative amortization mortgage, and balloon payment mortgage. Unlike
many other loan types, FRM interest payments and loan duration is fixed from
beginning to end.
Fixed-rate mortgages are characterized by amount of loan, interest rate, compounding
frequency, and duration. With these values, the monthly repayments can be calculated.
Unlike adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM), fixed-rate mortgages are not tied to an index.
Instead, the interest rate is set (or "fixed") in advance to an advertised rate, usually in
increments of 1/4 or 1/8 percent.
The fixed monthly payment for a fixed-rate mortgage is the amount paid by the borrower
every month that ensures that the loan is paid off in full with interest at the end of its
term.
Popularity
The United States Federal Housing Administration (FHA) helped develop and
standardize the fixed rate mortgage as an alternative to the balloon payment mortgage
by insuring them and by doing so helped the mortgage design garner usage. Because
of the large payment at the end of the older, balloon-payment loan, refinancing risk
resulted in widespread foreclosures. The fixed-rate mortgage was the first mortgage
loan that was fully amortized (fully paid at the end of the loan) precluding successive
loans, and had fixed interest rates and payments.
Fixed-rate mortgages are the most classic form of loan for home and product
purchasing in the United States. The most common terms are 15-year and 30-year
mortgages, but shorter terms are available, and 40-year and 50-year mortgages are
now available (common in areas with high priced housing, where even a 30-year term
leaves the mortgage amount out of reach of the average family).
Outside the United States, fixed-rate mortgages are less popular, and in some
countries, true fixed-rate mortgages are not available except for shorter-term loans. For
example, in Canada the longest term for which a mortgage rate can be fixed is typically
no more than ten years, while mortgage maturities are commonly 25 years. The
mortgage industry of the United Kingdom has traditionally been dominated by building
societies, whose raised funds must be at least 50% deposits, so lenders prefer variablerate
mortgages to fixed-rate mortgages to reduce asset–liability mismatch due to
interest rate risk. Lenders, in turn, influence consumer decisions which already prefer
lower initial monthly payments.
Page 215 of 289

Comparisons
Fixed rate mortgages are usually more expensive than adjustable rate mortgages. Due
to the inherent interest rate risk, long-term fixed rate loans will tend to be at a higher
interest rate than short-term loans. The relationship between interest rates for short and
long-term loans is represented by the yield curve, which generally slopes upward
(longer terms are more expensive). The opposite circumstance is known as an inverted
yield curve and occurs less often.
The fact that a fixed rate mortgage has a higher starting interest rate does not indicate
that this is a worse form of borrowing compared to the adjustable rate mortgages. If
interest rates rise, the ARM cost will be higher while the FRM will remain the same. In
effect, the lender has agreed to take the interest rate risk on a fixed-rate loan. Some
studies [3] have shown that the majority of borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages
save money in the long term, but that some borrowers pay more. The price of potentially
saving money, in other words, is balanced by the risk of potentially higher costs. In each
case, a choice would need to be made based upon the loan term, the current interest
rate, and the likelihood that the rate will increase or decrease during the life of the loan.
Pricing
Note: Fixed-rate mortgage interest may be compounded differently in other
countries, such as in Canada, where it is compounded every 6 months.
The fixed monthly payment for a fixed rate mortgage is the amount paid by the borrower
every month that ensures that the loan is paid off in full with interest at the end of its
term. This monthly payment depends upon the monthly interest rate (expressed as a
fraction, not a percentage, i.e., divide the quoted yearly nominal percentage rate by 100
and by 12 to obtain the monthly interest rate), the number of monthly payments called
the loan's term, and the amount borrowed known as the loan's principal; rearranging
the formula for the present value of an ordinary annuity we get the formula for :
For example, for a home loan for $200,000 with a fixed yearly nominal interest rate of
6.5% for 30 years, the principal is , the monthly interest rate is
, the number of monthly payments is , the fixed
monthly payment
. This formula is provided using the financial function
PMT in a spreadsheet such as Excel. In the example, the monthly payment is obtained
by entering either of the these formulas:
=PMT(6.5/100/12,30*12,200000)
=((6.5/100/12)/(1-(1+6.5/100/12)^(-30*12)))*200000
Page 216 of 289

This monthly payment formula is easy to derive, and the derivation illustrates how fixedrate
mortgage loans work. The amount owed on the loan at the end of every month
equals the amount owed from the previous month, plus the interest on this amount,
minus the fixed amount paid every month.
Amount owed at month 0:
Amount owed at month 1:
( principal + interest – payment)
(equation 1)
Amount owed at month 2:
Using equation 1 for
Amount owed at month 3:
(equation 2)
Using equation 2 for
Amount owed at month N:
Where
progression)
(equation 3)
(equation 4) (see geometric
(equation 5)
With the exception of two terms the and series are the same so when
you subtract all but two terms cancel:
Using equation 4 and 5
(equation 6)
Putting equation 6 back into 3:
will be zero because we have paid the loan off.
Page 217 of 289

We want to know
Divide top and bottom with
This derivation illustrates three key components of fixed-rate loans: (1) the fixed monthly
payment depends upon the amount borrowed, the interest rate, and the length of time
over which the loan is repaid; (2) the amount owed every month equals the amount
owed from the previous month plus interest on that amount, minus the fixed monthly
payment; (3) the fixed monthly payment is chosen so that the loan is paid off in full with
interest at the end of its term and no more money is owed.
FRM in Singapore
A fixed rate mortgage in the Republic only has the interest rate fixed for the first three to
five years of the loan, after which it will become variable.
United Kingdom
Nationwide Commercial recently issued a 30 year fixed rate mortgage as bridging
finance.
Adjustable Rate Mortgages
A variable-rate mortgage, adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM), or tracker mortgage is
a mortgage loan with the interest rate on the note periodically adjusted based on an
index which reflects the cost to the lender of borrowing on the credit markets. The loan
may be offered at the lender's standard variable rate/base rate. There may be a direct
and legally defined link to the underlying index, but where the lender offers no specific
link to the underlying market or index the rate can be changed at the lender's discretion.
The term "variable-rate mortgage" is most common outside the United States, whilst in
the United States, "adjustable-rate mortgage" is most common, and implies a mortgage
regulated by the Federal government, with caps on charges. In many countries,
adjustable rate mortgages are the norm, and in such places, may simply be referred to
as mortgages.
Among the most common indices are the rates on 1-year constant-maturity Treasury
(CMT) securities, the Cost of Funds Index (COFI), and the London Interbank Offered
Rate (LIBOR). A few lenders use their own cost of funds as an index, rather than using
other indices. This is done to ensure a steady margin for the lender, whose own cost of
Page 218 of 289

funding will usually be related to the index. Consequently, payments made by the
borrower may change over time with the changing interest rate (alternatively, the term of
the loan may change). This is distinct from the graduated payment mortgage, which
offers changing payment amounts but a fixed interest rate. Other forms of mortgage
loan include the interest-only mortgage, the fixed-rate mortgage, the negative
amortization mortgage, and the balloon payment mortgage.
Adjustable rates transfer part of the interest rate risk from the lender to the borrower.
They can be used where unpredictable interest rates make fixed rate loans difficult to
obtain. The borrower benefits if the interest rate falls but loses if the interest rate
increases. The borrower benefits from reduced margins to the underlying cost of
borrowing compared to fixed or capped rate mortgages.
Index
Characteristics
11th District Cost of Funds Index (COFI)
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR)
12-month Treasury Average Index (MTA)
Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT)
National Average Contract Mortgage Rate
Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW)
In some countries, banks may publish a prime lending rate which is used as the index.
The index may be applied in one of three ways: directly, on a rate plus margin basis, or
based on index movement.
A directly applied index means that the interest rate changes exactly with the index. In
other words, the interest rate on the note exactly equals the index. Of the above indices,
only the contract rate index is applied directly.
To apply an index on a rate plus margin basis means that the interest rate will equal the
underlying index plus a margin. The margin is specified in the note and remains fixed
over the life of the loan. For example, a mortgage interest rate may be specified in the
note as being LIBOR plus 2%, 2% being the margin and LIBOR being the index.
The final way to apply an index is on a movement basis. In this scheme, the mortgage is
originated at an agreed upon rate, then adjusted based on the movement of the index.
Unlike direct or index plus margin, the initial rate is not explicitly tied to any index; the
adjustments are tied to an index.
Basic Features of ARMs
The most important basic features of ARMs are:
Page 219 of 289

1. Initial Interest Rate. This is the beginning interest rate on an ARM.
2. The Adjustment Period. This is the length of time that the interest rate or loan
period on an ARM is scheduled to remain unchanged. The rate is reset at the
end of this period, and the monthly loan payment is recalculated.
3. The Index Rate. Most lenders tie ARM interest rates changes to changes in an
index rate. Lenders base ARM rates on a variety of indices, the most common
being rates on one-, three-, or five-year Treasury securities. Another common
index is the national or regional average cost of funds to savings and loan
associations.
4. The Margin. This is the percentage points that lenders add to the index rate to
determine the ARM's interest rate.
5. Interest Rate Caps. These are the limits on how much the interest rate or the
monthly payment can be changed at the end of each adjustment period or over
the life of the loan.
6. Initial Discounts. These are interest rate concessions, often used as
promotional aids, offered the first year or more of a loan. They reduce the interest
rate below the prevailing rate (the index plus the margin).
7. Negative Amortization. This means the mortgage balance is increasing. This
occurs whenever the monthly mortgage payments are not large enough to pay all
the interest due on the mortgage. This may be caused when the payment cap
contained in the ARM is low enough such that the principal plus interest payment
is greater than the payment cap.
8. Conversion. The agreement with the lender may have a clause that allows the
buyer to convert the ARM to a fixed-rate mortgage at designated times.
9. Prepayment. Some agreements may require the buyer to pay special fees or
penalties if the ARM is paid off early. Prepayment terms are sometimes
negotiable.
The choice of a home mortgage loan is complicated and time consuming. As a help to
the buyer, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board have
prepared a mortgage checklist.
Caps
Any mortgage where payments made by the borrower may increase over time brings
with it the risk of financial hardship to the borrower. To limit this risk, limitations on
charges—known as caps in the industry—are a common feature of adjustable rate
mortgages. Caps typically apply to three characteristics of the mortgage:
Page 220 of 289

frequency of the interest rate change
periodic change in interest rate
total change in interest rate over the life of the loan, sometimes called life cap
For example, a given ARM might have the following types of interest rate adjustment
caps:
interest adjustments made every six months, typically 1% per adjustment, 2%
total per year
interest adjustments made only once a year, typically 2% maximum
interest rate may adjust no more than 1% in a year
Mortgage payment adjustment caps:
maximum mortgage payment adjustments, usually 7.5% annually on payoption/negative
amortization loans
Life of loan interest rate adjustment caps:
total interest rate adjustment limited to 5% or 6% for the life of the loan.
Caps on the periodic change in interest rate may be broken up into one limit on the first
periodic change and a separate limit on subsequent periodic change, for example 5%
on the initial adjustment and 2% on subsequent adjustments.
Although uncommon, a cap may limit the maximum monthly payment in absolute terms
(for example, $1000 a month), rather than in relative terms.
ARMs that allow negative amortization will typically have payment adjustments that
occur less frequently than the interest rate adjustment. For example, the interest rate
may be adjusted every month, but the payment amount only once every 12 months.
Cap structure is sometimes expressed as initial adjustment cap / subsequent
adjustment cap / life cap, for example 2/2/5 for a loan with a 2% cap on the initial
adjustment, a 2% cap on subsequent adjustments, and a 5% cap on total interest rate
adjustments. When only two values are given, this indicates that the initial change cap
and periodic cap are the same. For example, a 2/2/5 cap structure may sometimes be
written simply 2/5.
Reasons for ARMs
ARMs generally permit borrowers to lower their initial payments if they are willing to
assume the risk of interest rate changes. There is evidence that consumers tend to
prefer contracts with the lowest initial rates, such as in the UK where consumers tend to
focus on immediate monthly mortgage costs. Decisions of consumers may also be
Page 221 of 289

affected by the advice they get, and much of the advice is provided by lenders who may
prefer ARMs because of financial market structures.
In many countries, banks or similar financial institutions are the primary originators of
mortgages. For banks that are funded from customer deposits, the customer deposits
will typically have much shorter terms than residential mortgages. If a bank were to offer
large volumes of mortgages at fixed rates but to derive most of its funding from deposits
(or other short-term sources of funds), the bank would have an asset–liability mismatch
due to interest rate risk: in this case, it would be running the risk that the interest income
from its mortgage portfolio would be less than it needed to pay its depositors. In the
United States, some argue that the savings and loan crisis was in part caused by this
problem, that the savings and loans companies had short-term deposits and long-term,
fixed rate mortgages, and were caught when Paul Volcker raised interest rates in the
early 1980s. Therefore, banks and other financial institutions offer adjustable rate
mortgages because it reduces risk and matches their sources of funding.
Banking regulators pay close attention to asset-liability mismatches to avoid such
problems, and place tight restrictions on the amount of long-term fixed-rate mortgages
that banks may hold (in relation to their other assets). To reduce this risk, many
mortgage originators will sell many of their mortgages, particularly the mortgages with
fixed rates.
For the borrower, adjustable rate mortgages may be less expensive, but at the price of
bearing higher risk. Many ARMs have "teaser periods", which are relatively short initial
fixed-rate periods (typically one month to one year) when the ARM bears an interest
rate that is substantially below the "fully indexed" rate. The teaser period may induce
some borrowers to view an ARM as more of a bargain than it really represents. A low
teaser rate predisposes an ARM to sustain above-average payment increases.
Hybrid ARMs
ARM Variants
A hybrid ARM features an interest rate that is fixed for an initial period of time, then
floats thereafter. The "hybrid" refers to the ARM's blend of fixed-rate and adjustable-rate
characteristics. Hybrid ARMs are referred to by their initial fixed-rate and adjustable-rate
periods, for example, 3/1, is for an ARM with a 3-year fixed interest-rate period and
subsequent 1-year interest-rate adjustment periods. The date that a hybrid ARM shifts
from a fixed-rate payment schedule to an adjusting payment schedule is known as the
reset date. After the reset date, a hybrid ARM floats at a margin over a specified index
just like any ordinary ARM.
The popularity of hybrid ARMs has significantly increased in recent years. In 1998, the
percentage of hybrids relative to 30-year fixed-rate mortgages was less than 2%; within
six years, this increased to 27.5%.
Page 222 of 289

Like other ARMs, hybrid ARMs transfer some interest-rate risk from the lender to the
borrower, thus allowing the lender to offer a lower note rate in many interest-rate
environments.
Option ARMs
An "option ARM" is typically a 30-year ARM that initially offers the borrower four monthly
payment options: a specified minimum payment, an interest-only payment, a 15-year
fully amortizing payment, and a 30-year fully amortizing payment.
These types of loans are also called "pick-a-payment" or "pay-option" ARMs.
When a borrower makes a Pay-Option ARM payment that is less than the accruing
interest, there is "negative amortization", which means that the unpaid portion of the
accruing interest is added to the outstanding principal balance. For example, if the
borrower makes a minimum payment of $1,000 and the ARM has accrued monthly
interest in arrears of $1,500, $500 will be added to the borrower's loan balance.
Moreover, the next month's interest-only payment will be calculated using the new,
higher principal balance.
Option ARMs are often offered with a very low teaser rate (often as low as 1%) which
translates into very low minimum payments for the first year of the ARM. During boom
times, lenders often underwrite borrowers based on mortgage payments that are below
the fully amortizing payment level. This enables borrowers to qualify for a much larger
Page 223 of 289

loan (i.e., take on more debt) than would otherwise be possible. When evaluating an
Option ARM, prudent borrowers will not focus on the teaser rate or initial payment level,
but will consider the characteristics of the index, the size of the "mortgage margin" that
is added to the index value, and the other terms of the ARM. Specifically, they need to
consider the possibilities that (1) long-term interest rates go up; (2) their home may not
appreciate or may even lose value or even (3) that both risks may materialize.
Option ARMs are best suited to sophisticated borrowers with growing incomes,
particularly if their incomes fluctuate seasonally and they need the payment flexibility
that such an ARM may provide. Sophisticated borrowers will carefully manage the level
of negative amortization that they allow to accrue.
In this way, a borrower can control the main risk of an Option ARM, which is "payment
shock", when the negative amortization and other features of this product can trigger
substantial payment increases in short periods of time.
The minimum payment on an Option ARM can jump dramatically if its unpaid principal
balance hits the maximum limit on negative amortization (typically 110% to 125% of the
original loan amount). If that happens, the next minimum monthly payment will be at a
level that would fully amortize the ARM over its remaining term. In addition, Option
ARMs typically have automatic "recast" dates (often every fifth year) when the payment
is adjusted to get the ARM back on pace to amortize the ARM in full over its remaining
term.
For example, a $200,000 ARM with a 110% "neg am" cap will typically adjust to a fully
amortizing payment, based on the current fully indexed interest rate and the remaining
term of the loan, if negative amortization causes the loan balance to exceed $220,000.
For a 125% recast, this will happen if the loan balance reaches $250,000.
Any loan that is allowed to generate negative amortization means that the borrower is
reducing his equity in his home, which increases the chance that he won't be able to sell
it for enough to repay the loan. Declining property values would exacerbate this risk.
Option ARMs may also be available as "hybrids," with longer fixed-rate periods. These
products would not be likely to have low teaser rates. As a result, such ARMs mitigate
the possibility of negative amortization, and would likely not appeal to borrowers
seeking an "affordability" product.
Cash Flow ARMs
A cash flow ARM is a minimum payment option mortgage loan. This type of loan allows
a borrower to choose their monthly payment from several options. These payment
options usually include the option to pay at the 30-year level, 15-year level, interest only
level, and a minimum payment level. The minimum payment level is usually lower than
the interest only payment. This type of loan can result in negative amortization. The
Page 224 of 289

option to make a minimum payment is usually available only for the first several years of
the loan.
Cash flow ARM mortgages are synonymous with option ARM or payment option ARM
mortgages, however it should be noted that not all loans with cash flow options are
adjustable. In fact, fixed rate cash flow option loans retain the same cash flow options
as cash flow ARMs and option ARMs, but remain fixed for up to 30 years.
Terminology
Term
Definition
Hybrid ARMs are often referred to in this format, where X is the number of
years during which the initial interest rate applies prior to first adjustment
(common terms are 3, 5, 7, and 10 years), and Y is the interval between
adjustments (common terms are 1 for one year and 6 for six months). As an
X/Y
example, a 5/1 ARM means that the initial interest rate applies for five years
(or 60 months, in terms of payments), after which the interest rate is
adjusted annually. (Adjustments for escrow accounts, however, do not
follow the 5/1 schedule; these are done annually.)
The price of the ARM is calculated by adding Index + Margin = Fully
Indexed Rate. This is the interest rate your loan would be at without a Start
Fully
Rate (the introductory special rate for the initial fixed period). This means
Indexed
the loan would be higher if adjusting, typically, 1–3% higher than the fixed
Rate
rate. Calculating this is important for ARM buyers, since it helps predict the
future interest rate of the loan.
For ARMs where the index is applied to the interest rate of the note on an
"index plus margin" basis, the margin is the difference between the note rate
and the index on which the note rate is based expressed in percentage
Margin
terms. [1] This is not to be confused with profit margin. The lower the margin
the better the loan is to the borrower as the maximum rate will increase less
at each adjustment. Margins will vary between 2% and 7%.
A published financial index such as LIBOR used to periodically adjust the
Index
interest rate of the ARM.
The introductory rate provided to purchasers of ARM loans for the initial
Start Rate
fixed interest period.
The length of time between interest rate adjustments. In times of falling
Period interest rates, a shorter period benefits the borrower. On the other hand, in
times of rising interest rates, a shorter period benefits the lender.
A clause that sets the minimum rate for the interest rate of an ARM loan.
Loans may come with a Start Rate = Floor feature, but this is primarily for
Floor Non-Conforming (aka Sub-Prime or Program Lending) loan products. This
prevents an ARM loan from ever adjusting lower than the Start Rate. An "A
Paper" loan typically has either no Floor or 2% below start.
Payment Industry term to describe the severe (unexpected or planned for by
Page 225 of 289

Shock
Cap
borrower) upward movement of mortgage loan interest rates and its effect
on borrowers. This is the major risk of an ARM, as this can lead to severe
financial hardship for the borrower.
Any clause that sets a limitation on the amount or frequency of rate
changes.
Loan Caps
Loan caps provide payment protection against payment shock, and allow a measure of
interest rate certainty to those who gamble with initial fixed rates on ARM loans. There
are three types of Caps on a typical First Lien Adjustable Rate Mortgage or First Lien
Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage.
Initial Adjustment Rate Cap: The majority of loans have a higher cap for initial
adjustments that's indexed to the initial fixed period. In other words, the longer the initial
fixed term, the more the bank would like to potentially adjust your loan. Typically, this
cap is 2–3% above the Start Rate on a loan with an initial fixed rate term of three years
or lower and 5–6% above the Start Rate on a loan with an initial fixed rate term of five
years or greater.
Rate Adjustment Cap: This is the maximum amount by which an Adjustable Rate
Mortgage may increase on each successive adjustment. Similar to the initial cap, this
cap is usually 1% above the Start Rate for loans with an initial fixed term of three years
or greater and usually 2% above the Start Rate for loans that have an initial fixed term
of five years or greater.
Lifetime Cap: Most First Mortgage loans have a 5% or 6% Life Cap above the Start
Rate (this ultimately varies by the lender and credit grade).
Industry Shorthand for ARM Caps
Inside the business caps are expressed most often by simply the three numbers
involved that signify each cap. For example, a 5/1 Hybrid ARM may have a cap
structure of 5/2/5 (5% initial cap, 2% adjustment cap and 5% lifetime cap) and insiders
would call this a 5-2-5 cap. Alternatively, a 1-year ARM might have a 1/1/6 cap (1%
initial cap, 1% adjustment cap and 6% lifetime cap) known as a 1-1-6, or alternatively
expressed as a 1/6 cap (leaving out one digit signifies that the initial and adjustment
caps are identical).
Negative amortization ARM caps
See the complete article for the type of ARM that Negative amortization loans are by
nature. Higher risk products, such as First Lien Monthly Adjustable loans with Negative
amortization and Home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) have different ways of
structuring the Cap than a typical First Lien Mortgage. The typical First Lien Monthly
Adjustable loans with Negative amortization loan has a life cap for the underlying rate
Page 226 of 289

(aka "Fully Indexed Rate") between 9.95% and 12% (maximum assessed interest rate).
Some of these loans can have much higher rate ceilings. The fully indexed rate is
always listed on the statement, but borrowers are shielded from the full effect of rate
increases by the minimum payment, until the loan is recast, which is when principal and
interest payments are due that will fully amortize the loan at the fully indexed rate.
Home equity lines of credit (HELOCs)
Since HELOCs are intended by banks to primarily sit in second lien position, they
normally are only capped by the maximum interest rate allowed by law in the state
wherein they are issued. For example, Florida currently has an 18% cap on interest rate
charges. They are risky to the borrower in the sense that they are mostly indexed to the
Wall Street Journal prime rate, which is considered a Spot Index, or a financial indicator
that is subject to immediate change (as are the loans based upon the Prime Rate). The
risk to borrower being that a financial situation causing the Federal Reserve to raise
rates dramatically (see 1980, 2006) would effect an immediate rise in obligation to the
borrower, up to the capped rate.
Popularity
Variable rate mortgages are the most common form of loan for house purchase in the
United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada but are unpopular in some other countries such as
Germany. Variable rate mortgages are very common in Australia and New Zealand. In
some countries, true fixed-rate mortgages are not available except for shorter-term
loans; in Canada, the longest term for which a mortgage rate can be fixed is typically no
more than ten years, while mortgage maturities are commonly 25 years.
In many countries, it is not feasible for banks to lend at fixed rates for very long terms; in
these cases, the only feasible type of mortgage for banks to offer may be adjustable
rate mortgages (barring some form of government intervention). For example, the
mortgage industry of the United Kingdom has traditionally been dominated by building
Page 227 of 289

societies. Since funds raised by UK building societies must be at least 50% deposits,
lenders prefer variable-rate mortgages to fixed-rate mortgages to reduce potential
interest rate risks between what they charging in mortgage interest and what they are
paying in interest for deposits and other funding sources.
Countries where fixed rate loans are the common form of loan for a house purchase
usually need to have a specific legal framework in place to make this possible. For
example, in Germany and Austria the popular Bausparkassen, a type of mutual building
societies, offer long-term fixed rate loans. They are legally separate from banks and
require borrowers to save up a considerable amount, at a rather low fixed interest rate,
before they get their loan; this is done by requiring the future borrower to begin paying
in his fixed monthly payments well before actually getting the loan. It is generally not
possible to pay this in as a lump sum and get the loan right away; it has to be done in
monthly installments of the same size as what will be paid during the payback phase of
the mortgage. Depending on whether there are enough savers in the system at any
given time, payout of a loan may be delayed for some time even when the savings
quota has already been met by the would-be borrower. The advantage for the borrower
is that the monthly payment is guaranteed never to be increased, and the lifetime of the
loan is also fixed in advance. The disadvantage is that this model, in which you have to
start making payments several years before actually getting the loan, is mostly aimed at
once-in-a-lifetime home buyers who are able to plan ahead for a long time. That has
become a problem with the generally higher mobility that is demanded of workers
nowadays.
For those who plan to move within a relatively short period of time (three to seven
years), variable rate mortgages may still be attractive because they often include a
lower, fixed rate of interest for the first three, five, or seven years of the loan, after which
the interest rate fluctuates.
Pricing
Adjustable rate mortgages are typically, but not always, less expensive than fixed-rate
mortgages. Due to the inherent interest rate risk, long-term fixed rates will tend to be
higher than short-term rates (which are the basis for variable-rate loans and
mortgages). The difference in interest rates between short and long-term loans is known
as the yield curve, which generally slopes upward (longer terms are more expensive).
The opposite circumstance is known as an inverted yield curve and is relatively
infrequent.
The fact that an adjustable rate mortgage has a lower starting interest rate does not
indicate what the future cost of borrowing will be (when rates change). If rates rise, the
cost will be higher; if rates go down, cost will be lower. In effect, the borrower has
agreed to take the interest rate risk.
The actual pricing and rate analysis of adjustable rate mortgage in the finance industry
is done through various computer simulation methodologies like Monte Carlo method or
Page 228 of 289

Sobol sequences. In these techniques, by using an assumed probability distribution of
future interest rates, numerous (10,000–100,000 or even 1,000,000) possible interest
rate scenarios are explored, mortgage cash flows calculated under each, and aggregate
parameters like fair value and effective interest rate over the life of the mortgage are
estimated.
Having these at hand, lending analysts determine whether offering a particular
mortgage would be profitable, and if it would represent tolerable risk to the bank.
Prepayment
Adjustable rate mortgages, like other types of mortgage, usually allow the borrower to
prepay principal (or capital) early without penalty. Early payments of part of the principal
will reduce the total cost of the loan (total interest paid), but will not shorten the amount
of time needed to pay off the loan like other loan types.
Upon each recasting, the new fully indexed interest rate is applied to the remaining
principal to end within the remaining term schedule.
If a mortgage is refinanced, the borrower simultaneously takes out a new mortgage and
pays off the old mortgage; the latter counts as a prepayment.
Some ARMs charge prepayment penalties of several thousand dollars if the borrower
refinances the loan or pays it off early, especially within the first three or five years of
the loan.
Page 229 of 289

Criticism
Predatory lending
Adjustable rate mortgages are sometimes sold to consumers who are unlikely to repay
the loan should interest rates rise. In the United States, extreme cases are
characterized by the Consumer Federation of America as predatory loans. Protections
against interest rate rises include (a) a possible initial period with a fixed rate (which
gives the borrower a chance to increase his/her annual earnings before payments rise);
(b) a maximum (cap) that interest rates can rise in any year (if there is a cap, it must be
specified in the loan document); and (c) a maximum (cap) that interest rates can rise
over the life of the mortgage (this also must be specified in the loan document).
Interest Rate Errors and Overcharges
In September 1991, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study of
Adjustable Rate Mortgages in the United States which found between 20% and 25% of
the ARM loans out of the estimated 12 million at the time contained Interest Rate Errors.
A former federal mortgage banking auditor estimated these mistakes created at least
US$10 billion in net overcharges to American home-owners. Such errors occurred when
the related mortgage servicer selected the incorrect index date, used an incorrect
margin, or ignored interest rate change caps.
In July 1994, Consumer Loan Advocates, a non-profit mortgage auditing firm
announced that as many as 18% of Adjustable Rate Mortgages have errors costing the
borrower more than $5,000 in interest overcharges.
In December 1995, a government study concluded that 50–60% of all Adjustable Rate
Mortgages in the United States contain an error regarding the variable interest rate
charged to the homeowner. [11] The study estimated the total amount of interest
overcharged to borrowers was in excess of $8 billion. Inadequate computer programs,
incorrect completion of documents and calculation errors were cited as the major
causes of interest rate overcharges. No other government studies have been conducted
into ARM interest overcharges.
History
TITLE VIII, ALTERNATIVE MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS, Garn–St. Germain
Depository Institutions Act of 1982 allowed Adjustable rate mortgages.
ARM in Singapore
In Singapore, ARM is commonly known as floating rate or variable rate mortgage.
Unlike fixed-rate mortgage in the country, a floating rate mortgage has its interest rate
varying during the entire duration of the loan. These loans can be pegged to the
Page 230 of 289

ank board rate,
SIBOR, or
SOR
Typically the structure of the interest rate of the mortgage is as follow
First Year
Period
Second Year
Interest Rate (p.a.)
0.75% + 1-Month SIBOR
0.75% + 1-Month SIBOR
Third Year
1.00% + 1-Month SIBOR
Fourth Year Onwards 1.25% + 1-Month SIBOR
The loan can be pegged to SIBOR or SOR of any duration, and a spread (margin) is
tacked to the X-month SIBOR/SOR. The spread is usually adjusted upwards after the
first few years.
Between SIBOR, SOR and the board rate, SIBOR-pegged ARMs are the most popular.
However, recently, ANZ introduced an ARM that is pegged to the average of SIBOR
and SOR. Till date, it is the only bank in Singapore to offer such a mortgage.
Mortgage Loan
Financial literacy
Interest
rate type
Repayment
type
fixed-rate mortgage
adjustable-rate mortgage / variable-rate / floating rate
Continuous: Repayment mortgage / self-amortized
Repayment at term: interest-only mortgage (endowment mortgage)
No repayment: reverse mortgage
Hybrid: balloon payment mortgage
equity release (shared appreciation mortgage)
Variable
payment
Other
variations
flexible mortgage (offset mortgage, mortgage accelerator)
graduated payment mortgage loan
buy to let mortgage
foreign currency mortgage
foreign national mortgage
wraparound mortgage
Key Annual percentage rate (APR)
Page 231 of 289

concepts Foreclosure / Repossession
Introductory rate
Teaser rate
VA loan
United States housing bubble
US mortgage terminology
______
Mortgage Calculator
How to Calculate Mortgage Loan Payments, Amortization Schedules
(Tables) by Hand or Computer Programming
First you must define some variables to make it easier to set up:
P = principal, the initial amount of the loan
I = the annual interest rate (from 1 to 100 percent)
L = length, the length (in years) of the loan, or at least the length over which the loan
is amortized.
The following assumes a typical conventional loan where the interest is compounded
monthly.
First I will define two more variables to make the calculations easier:
J = monthly interest in decimal form = I / (12 x 100)
N = number of months over which loan is amortized = L x 12
Okay now for the big monthly payment (M) formula, it is:
J
M = P x ------------------------
1 - ( 1 + J ) ^ -N
where 1 is the number one
(it does not appear too clearly on some browsers)
So to calculate it, you would first calculate 1 + J then take that to the -N (minus N)
power, subtract that from the number 1. Now take the inverse of that (if you have a 1/X
button on your calculator push that). Then multiply the result times J and then times P.
Sorry, for the long way of explaining it, but I just wanted to be clear for everybody.
Page 232 of 289

The one-liner for a program would be (adjust for your favorite language):
M = P * (J/(1-(1+J) ** -N))
So now you should be able to calculate the monthly payment, M. To calculate the
amortization table you need to do some iteration (i.e. a simple loop). I will tell you the
simple steps :
Step 1: Calculate H = P x J, this is your current monthly interest
Step 2: Calculate C = M - H, this is your monthly payment minus your monthly interest,
so it is the amount of principal you pay for that month
Step 3: Calculate Q = P - C, this is the new balance of your principal of your loan.
Step 4: Set P equal to Q and go back to Step 1: You thusly loop around until the value
Q (and hence P)
goes to zero.
Programmers will see how this makes a trivial little loop to code, but I have found that
many people now surfing on the Internet are NOT programmers and still want to
calculate their mortgages! So this page was dedicated more to the latter. If you have
any further questions you can contact me for more info.
Finding the Number of Periods given a Payment, Interest and Loan
Amount
This formula previously was not explicit enough!! The 1/q factor in there was to
convert the number of periods into years. For number of payments this must
actually be left out.
Many people have asked me how to find N (number of payments) given the payment,
interest and loan amount. I didn't know the answer and in my calculators I find it by
doing a binary search over the payment formula above. However, Gary R. Walo (
nenonen5@southeast.net) found the answer to the actual formula in the book: The Vest
Pocket Real Estate Advisor by Martin Miles (Prentice Hall).
Here is the corrected formula:
n = - (LN(1-(B/m)*(r/q)))/LN(1+(r/q))
# years = - 1/q * (LN(1-(B/m)*(r/q)))/LN(1+(r/q))
Where:
q = amount of annual payment periods
r = interest rate
B = principal
Page 233 of 289

m = payment amount
n = amount payment periods
LN = natural logarithm
For Finding Remaining Principal Balance
The following formula will calculate your remaining balance if you have made t of N
fixed payments in a timely basis (i.e. by the due date) so that no additional interest has
accrued.
where:
P = P*(1 -((1 + J)**t - 1)/((1 + J)**N - 1))
P = principal, the initial amount of the loan
I = the annual interest rate (from 1 to 100 percent)
L = length, the length (in years) of the loan, or at least the length over which the
loan is amortized.
J = monthly interest in decimal form = I / (12 x 100)
N = number of months over which loan is amortized = L x 12
t=number of paid monthly loan payments
This is from Mortgage Backed Securities by William W Barlett and was sent to me by
Victor Kheyfets.
If you would like to calculate an outstanding loan balance but have not made regular
fixed payments by the due date, you will have to fill out an accurate payment schedule
within a spreadsheet, or similar application where you can account for missing and
different payments.
Finding the Interest Rate Given Loan Amount, Payment and Number
of Periods
Many folks have asked me for a simple formula to calculate the interest rate give the
other three terms (loan amount, payment and # of periods). I can calculate the number
easily enough, but I have no idea if there is a simple formula to do it or not. I do it the
good old fashioned way -- plug and chug! Luckily, a computer program makes "plug and
chug" trivial and speedy with a simple binary search:
min_rate = 0; max_rate = 100; # Set Maximum and minimum rate
while (min_rate < max_rate - 0.0001)
{
mid_rate = (min_rate + max_rate) / 2; # Divide by 2
J = mid_rate / 1200; # Convert to monthly decimal
# calculate payment from interest, term and loan_amt
guessed_pmt = loan_amt * ( J / (1 - (1 + J) ** -N ));
Page 234 of 289

if (guessed_pmt > actual_payment)
{
max_rate = mid_rate; # current rate is new maximum
}
else
{
min_rate = mid_rate; # current rate is new minimum
}
}
print " The Rate is ", mid_rate;
On any modern computer this runs pretty much instantaneously.
Canadian Formula
Canadian mortgages are compounded semi-annually instead of monthly like
US mortgages.
Monthly Pmt =
(P*(((1+i/200)^(1/6)-1))/(1-(((1+i/200)^(1/6)))^-(n*12)))
Where:
P = principal outstanding
i = annual interest rate percentage
n = number of years
Here is a easier to read representation:
i 1/6
( 1 + --- ) - 1
200
Pmt = Principal x ------------------------
i 1/6 -12 x n
1 - [ (1 + --- ) ]
200
Or to convert canadian interest rates to US interest rates:
Can. Rate 1/6
US Rate = 1200 x [ ( 1 + --------- ) - 1 ]
200
or as a formula, US Rate = 1200 * ((1 + Can.Rate/200)^(1/6) - 1)
You'll note if you plug this into the US formula you get the above formula for payment.
Page 235 of 289

3. Creditworthiness Is of No Consequence
- Defined
An assessment of the likelihood that a borrower will default on his or her debt
obligations. It is based upon factors, such as his/her history of repayment and credit
score. Lending institutions also consider the availability of assets and extent of liabilities
to determine the probability of default.
- Investopedia
______
A credit rating is an evaluation of the credit worthiness of a debtor, especially a
business (company) or a government, but not individual consumers. The evaluation is
made by a credit rating agency of the debtor's ability to pay back the debt and the
likelihood of default. Evaluations of individuals' credit worthiness are known as credit
reporting and done by credit bureaus, or consumer credit reporting agencies, which
issue credit scores.
Page 236 of 289

Credit ratings are determined by credit ratings agencies. The credit rating represents
the credit rating agency's evaluation of qualitative and quantitative information for a
company or government; including non-public information obtained by the credit rating
agencies' analysts.
The credit rating is used by individuals and entities that purchase the bonds issued by
companies and governments to determine the likelihood that the government will pay its
bond obligations.
A poor credit rating indicates a credit rating agency's opinion that the company or
government has a high risk of defaulting, based on the agency's analysis of the entity's
history and analysis of long term economic prospects.
Sovereign credit ratings
A sovereign credit rating is the credit rating of a sovereign entity, i.e., a national
government. The sovereign credit rating indicates the risk level of the investing
environment of a country and is used by investors looking to invest abroad. It takes
political risk into account.
Source: Euromoney Country Risk
Country Risk Rankings (January 2013)
Least risky countries, Score out of 100 Previous Country Overall score
Rank
1 1 Norway 89.87
2 3 Luxembourg 87.29
3 4 Singapore 86.81
4 5 Sweden 86.81
5 2 Switzerland 86.78
6 6 Finland 84.54
7 7 Denmark 82.64
8 9 Hong Kong 82.43
9 8 Netherlands 81.82
10 8 Canada 81.82
The "country risk rankings" table shows the ten least-risky countries for investment as of
January 2013. Ratings are further broken down into components including political risk,
economic risk. Euromoney's bi-annual country risk index monitors the political and
economic stability of 185 sovereign countries. Results focus foremost on economics,
specifically sovereign default risk and/or payment default risk for exporters (a.k.a. "trade
credit" risk).
Page 237 of 289

A. M. Best defines "country risk" as the risk that country-specific factors could adversely
affect an insurer's ability to meet its financial obligations.
Short-Term Rating
A short-term rating is a probability factor of an individual going into default within a year.
This is in contrast to long-term rating which is evaluated over a long timeframe. In the
past institutional investors preferred to consider long-term ratings. Nowadays, shortterm
ratings are commonly used.
First, the Basel II agreement requires banks to report their one-year rose if they applied
internal-ratings-based approach for capital requirements. Second, many institutional
investors can easily manage their credit/bond portfolios with derivatives on monthly or
quarterly basis. Therefore, some rating agencies simply report short-term ratings.
Corporate credit ratings
Credit ratings that concern corporations are usually of a corporation's financial
instruments i.e. debt security such as a bond, but corporations themselves are also
sometimes rated. Ratings are assigned by credit rating agencies, the largest of which
are Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings. They use letter designations such as
A, B, C. Higher grades are intended to represent a lower probability of default.
Agencies do not attach a hard number of probability of default to each grade, preferring
descriptive definitions such as: "the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment
on the obligation is extremely strong," or "less vulnerable to non-payment than other
speculative issues ..." (Standard and Poors' definition of a AAA rated and a BB rated
bond respectively). However, some studies have estimated the average risk and reward
of bonds by rating. One study by a rating service (Moody's) claimed that over a "5-year
time horizon" bonds it gave its highest rating (Aaa) to had a "cumulative default rate" of
just 0.18%, the next highest (Aa2) 0.28%, the next (Baa2) 2.11%, 8.82% for the next
(Ba2), and 31.24% for the lowest it studied (B2). (See "Default rate" in "Estimated
spreads and default rates by rating grade" table to right.) Over a longer time horizon it
stated "the order is by and large, but not exactly, preserved".
Estimated Spreads And
Default Rates by Rating Grade
Rating
Basis
Point
Spread
Default
Rate
AAA/Aaa 43 0.18%
AA/Aa2 73 0.28%
A 99 n/a
BBB/Baa2 166 2.11%
Page 238 of 289

BB/Ba2 299 8.82%
B/B2 404 31.24%
CCC 724 n/a
Sources: Basis spread from
Federal Reserve Bank of
New York Quarterly Review,
Summer-Fall 1994";
Default rate from study
by Moody's investment service
Another study in Journal of Finance calculated the additional interest rate or "spread"
corporate bonds pay over that of "riskless" US Treasury bonds, according to the bonds
rating. (See "Basis point spread" in table to right.) Looking at rated bonds from 1973–
89, the authors found a AAA rated bond paid only 43 "basis points" (or 43/100th of a
percentage point) over a Treasury bond (so that it would yield 3.43% if the Treasury
yielded 3.00%). A CCC-rated "junk" (or speculative) bond on the other hand, paid over
4% (404 basis points) more than a Treasury on average over that period.
Different rating agencies may use variations of an alphabetical combination of lower and
upper case letters, with either plus or minus signs or numbers added to further fine tune
the rating (see colored chart). The Standard & Poor's rating scale uses upper case
letters and pluses and minuses. The Moody's rating system uses numbers and lower
case letters as well as upper case.
While Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings control approximately 95% of the credit ratings
business, they are not the only rating agencies. DBRS's long-term ratings scale is
somewhat similar to Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings with the words high and low
replacing the + and −. It goes as follows, from excellent to poor: AAA, AA(high), AA,
AA(low), A(high), A, A(low), BBB(high), BBB, BBB(low), BB(high), BB, BB(low), B(high),
B, B(low), CCC(high), CCC, CCC(low), CC(high), CC, CC(low), C(high), C, C(low) and
D. The short-term ratings often maps to long-term ratings though there is room for
exceptions at the high or low side of each equivalent.
S&P, Moody's, Fitch and DBRS are the only four ratings agencies that are recognized
by the European Central Bank for the purposes of determining collateral requirements
for banks to borrow from the central bank. The ECB uses a first, best rule among the
four agencies that have the designated ECAI status. That means that it takes the
highest rating among the four - S&P, Moody's, Fitch and DBRS - to determine haircuts
and collateral requirements for borrowing. Ratings in Europe have been under close
scrutiny, particularly the highest ratings given to countries like Spain, Ireland and Italy
because it affects how much banks can borrow against sovereign debt they hold.
A. M. Best rates from excellent to poor in the following manner: A++, A+, A, A−, B++,
B+, B, B−, C++, C+, C, C−, D, E, F, and S. The CTRISKS rating system is as follows:
CT3A, CT2A, CT1A, CT3B, CT2B, CT1B, CT3C, CT2C and CT1C. All these CTRISKS
grades are mapped to one-year probability of default.
Page 239 of 289

Moody's S&P Fitch
Longterm
Shortterm
Longterm
Shortterm
Longterm
Shortterm
rating description
Aaa
AAA
AAA
Prime
Aa1 AA+ AA+
A-1+
F1+
Aa2 AA AA
P-1
Aa3 AA− AA−
High grade
A1 A+
A+
A-1
F1 Upper medium
A2 A A
grade
A3
A−
A−
P-2
F2
Baa1 BBB+ A-2 BBB+
Lower medium
Baa2
BBB
BBB
P-3
F3
grade
Baa3 BBB− A-3 BBB−
Ba1
BB+
BB+
Non-investment
Ba2 BB BB
grade
Ba3 BB− BB−
speculative
B
B
B1 B+ B+
B2 B B
Highly speculative
B3 B− B−
Caa1
CCC+
CCC+
Caa2 Not Prime CCC CCC
Substantial risks
Caa3 CCC− CCC−
C
C
Extremely
CC
CC
Ca
speculative
C C Default imminent
C
RD
DDD
/ SD D DD D In default
/ D D
Credit Rating Agencies
In addition to "the Big Three" of Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings, other
agencies and rating companies include (in alphabetical order):
Agusto & Co. (Nigeria), A. M. Best (U.S.), China Chengxin Credit Rating Group (China),
Shanghai Brilliance Credit Rating & Investors Service Co.,Ltd (China), Credit Rating
Agency Ltd (Zambia), Credit Rating Information and Services Limited (Bangladesh),
CTRISKS (Hong Kong), Dagong Europe Credit Rating (Italy), DBRS (Canada), Dun &
Bradstreet (U.S.), Egan-Jones Rating Company (U.S.), Global Credit Ratings Co.
(South Africa), HR Ratings (Mexico), PACRA Limited (Pakistan) ICRA Limited (India),
Page 240 of 289

Japan Credit Rating Agency (Japan), Levin and Goldstein (Zambia), Morningstar, Inc.
(U.S.), Muros Ratings (Russia, alternative rating company), Public Sector Credit
Solutions (U.S., not-for profit rating provider), Rapid Ratings International [26] (U.S.),
RusRating (Russia), Universal Credit Rating Group (Hong Kong), Veda (Australia,
previously known as Baycorp Advantage), Wikirating (Switzerland, alternative rating
organization), Humphreys Ltd (Chile, previously known as Moody´s Partner in Chile),
Credit Research Initiative (Singapore, non-profit rating provider).
4. Next We Review Each Partner’s Percentage of Income,
and, as Determined by National/ International Averages,
We Determines the Percentage of Payment for Each
Partner
The Twenty-Eight Percent (28 %) Threshold
Therefore, the bank thinks you can devote up to 28 percent of your household income
to your mortgage payment and expenses (including taxes, insurance and association
dues). Banks will also typically allow a total debt-to-income ratio of up to around 36
percent.
______
Mortgages: How Much Can You Afford?
By James E. McWhinney
Regardless of where you live, how much you earn or what type of house you are
shopping for, as soon as you find out how much the seller is asking, your first reaction
might be something like, "Wow! That's expensive!" Your initial assessment is correct.
With prices rising quickly, particularly in areas like New York and Boston, even starter
homes can carry hefty six-figure price tags. Your next reaction is likely to be, "Can I
afford that?"
Generally speaking, most prospective homeowners can afford to mortgage a property
that costs between 2 and 2.5 times their gross income. Under this formula, a person
earning $100,000 per year can afford to mortgage between $200,000 and $250,000.
But this calculation is only a general guideline.
Ultimately, when deciding on a property, you need to consider a few more factors. First,
it's a good idea to have an understanding of what your lender thinks you can afford – to
gain a precise idea of what size of mortgage their clients can handle, lenders use
formulas that are much more complex and thorough. Secondly, you need to determine
some personal criteria by evaluating not only your finances but also your preferences.
Page 241 of 289

Lender's Criteria: Debt-to-Income Ratios
From a lender's perspective, your ability to purchase a home depends largely on the
following factors:
Front-End Ratio. The front-end ratio is the percentage of your yearly gross income
dedicated toward paying your mortgage each month. Your mortgage payment consists
of four components: principal, interest, taxes and insurance (often collectively referred
to as PITI) (see Understanding The Mortgage Payment Structure). A good rule of thumb
is that PITI should not exceed 28% of your gross income. However, many lenders let
borrowers exceed 30%, and some even let borrowers exceed 40%.
Back-End Ratio. The back-end ratio, also known as the debt-to-income ratio (DTI),
calculates the percentage of your gross income required to cover your debts. Debts
include your mortgage, credit card payments, child support and other loan payments.
Most lenders recommend that your DTI does not exceed 36% of your gross income. To
calculate your
maximum
monthly debt
based on this
ratio, multiply
your gross
income by
0.36 and
divide by 12.
For example,
if you earn
$100,000 per
year, your
maximum
monthly debt
expenses
should not
exceed
$3,000.
Down
Payment. A
down payment of at least 20% of the purchase price of the home minimizes insurance
requirements, but many lenders let buyers purchase a home with significantly smaller
down payments. The down payment has a direct impact on your mortgage payment,
and, therefore, also on both the front-end and back-end ratios. Larger down payments
enable buyers to purchase more expensive homes.
Page 242 of 289

Being House Poor: a Personal Decision
To be 'house poor' means that the costs of paying for, and maintaining, your home take
up such a large percentage of your income that you don't have enough money left to
cover other expenses. As grim as that sounds, many people choose to be 'house poor'
because they believe that it's wise to purchase the most expensive home that they can
afford, regardless of how far they have to stretch. Their theory is that, over time, their
income will increase as a result of raises and promotions, making that expensive
mortgage a smaller and smaller percentage of their monthly expenses.
Clearly, those who choose to be 'house poor' have their own set personal criteria
determining what kind of home they can afford. (To learn more about the home costs,
Personal Criteria
The decision of whether or not to be 'house poor' is largely a matter of personal choice
– since getting approved for a mortgage doesn't mean that you can actually afford the
payments. So, in addition to the lender's criteria, consider the following issues and set
some decisive factors of your own:
Income. When contemplating your ability to pay a mortgage, ask yourself the following
questions: Are you relying on two incomes just to pay the bills? Is your job stable? Can
you easily find another job that pays the same, or better, wages if you should lose your
current job?Expenses The calculation of your back-end-ratio will include most of your
current debt expenses, but what about other expenses that you haven't generated yet?
Will you have kids in college someday? Do you have plans to buy a new car, truck or
boat? Does your family enjoy a yearly vacation?
Lifestyle. Are you willing to change your lifestyle to get the house you want? If fewer
trips to the mall and a little tightening of the budget doesn't bother you, applying a higher
back-end-ratio might work out fine. If you can't live without that double mocha
cappuccino every morning, you might want to play it safe, and take a more conservative
approach to that mortgage payment.
Personality. No two people have the same personality, regardless of their income.
Some people can sleep soundly at night knowing that they owe $5,000 per month for
the next 30 years, while others fret over a payment half that size. The prospect of
refinancing the house in order to afford payments on a new car would drive some
people crazy while not worrying others at all. If you keep your personality in mind when
shopping for a new house, you are likely to be pleased with your purchase.
Beyond the Mortgage
Buying a new home is an exciting adventure. But many prospective homeowners,
caught up in the thrill of searching for their dream house, forget to pause and consider
Page 243 of 289

the financial responsibilities of homeownership. While the mortgage is certainly the
largest and most visible cost associated with a home, there are a host of additional
expenses, some of which don't go away even after the mortgage is paid off. Smart
shoppers would do well to keep the following items in mind:
Maintenance. Even if you build a new home, it won't stay new forever, nor will those
expensive major appliances, such as stoves, dishwashers and refrigerators. The same
applies to the roof, furnace, driveway, carpet and even the paint on the walls. If you are
'house poor' when you take on that first mortgage payment, you could find yourself in a
difficult situation if your finances haven't improved by the time your home is in need of
major repairs.
Utilities. Heat, light, water, sewage, trash removal, cable television and telephone
services all cost money. These expenses are not included in the front-end ratio, nor are
they calculated in the back-end ratio. But these expenses are unavoidable for most
homeowners.
Association Fees. Many homes in planned communities assess monthly or yearly
association fees. Sometimes these fees are less than $100 per year, other times they
are several hundred dollars per month. Ask about association fees prior to making a
purchase. Find out about what the fee covers. In some communities, it includes lawn
maintenance, snow removal, a community pool and other services. In other
communities, the association fee covers little more than the administrative costs of
Page 244 of 289

hiring an attorney to encourage everyone in the neighborhood to maintain the exterior
appearance of their homes. While an increasing number of lenders include association
fees in the front-end ratio, it pays to remember that these fees are likely to increase over
time.
Furniture and Décor. Drive through almost any community of new homes after the sun
goes down, and you're likely to notice some interior lights illuminating big, empty rooms,
which you can see only because those big, beautiful houses don't have any window
coverings. This isn't the latest decorating trend. It's the result of a family that spent all
their money on the house, and now can't afford curtains or furniture. Before you buy a
new house, take a good look around the number of rooms that will need to be furnished
and the number of windows that will need to be covered.
Think Before You Buy
The cost of a home is the single largest personal expense most people will ever face.
Prior to taking on such an enormous debt, take the time to do the math. After you run
the numbers, consider your personal situation, and think about your present and future
lifestyle into the next three decades. Make an informed decision, and be sure to
purchase a home that you can afford without compromising your future.
______
What Percentage of Income Should Be Spent on a Mortgage?
by Mindy Sitton-Halleck
A general rule in qualifying for a home mortgage is that your debt-to-income ratio be no
higher than 28/36 percent on conventional loans and 31/43 percent on Federal Housing
Authority (FHA) loans. Ratios above this may mean that you will be denied credit or
subjected to a higher mortgage interest rate.
Percentage of Income
These typical qualifying ratios are influenced by factors such as type of mortgage
product (30-year fixed, adjustable, etc.), borrower’s credit, downpayment and often the
collateral. This means no more than 28 percent (front-end ratio) of a borrower’s gross
monthly income should be used to pay the PITI payment (principal, interest, property
taxes and insurance). Your total debt-to-income ratio (back-end ratio) is your housing
payment--mortgage, property taxes, homeowners insurance--and your existing debts.
Types of Debt
Additional debt items that appear on your credit report include car and student loans,
monthly credit card payments and child support. Doctor and phone bills, and so forth
Page 245 of 289

are not included. Ideally, no more than 36 percent (conventional) or 43 percent (FHA) of
your monthly income is to be used to pay these total combined PITI and monthly debts.
Calculating Ratios
For example, if you earn $6,000 monthly, and you have a car payment of $497 and
credit card charges of $198 a month, the highest total housing payment you would
qualify for, given a 20 percent downpayment (conventional loan) would be
approximately $2,100. On FHA, the upper limit (using a 3.5 percent downpayment)
would be roughly $2,590.
Expert Insight
Normally, FHA will require your mortgage payment (PITI) to not exceed 31 percent of
your gross monthly income. Additionally, your total monthly debt obligations (mortgage,
credit cards, car and student loans, child support, etc.) should not surpass 43 percent of
your monthly earnings. These ratios are more generous than what can be found with
conventional loans. Higher ratios are obtainable if you’re acquiring an energy-efficient
home. What is called the "stretch" ratio is a liberal 33/45 percent.
Considerations
When considering purchasing a home with less than 20 percent downpayment, you will
most likely be required to purchase mortgage insurance that will add to your PITI. On an
FHA loan, the insurance is called Mortgage Insurance Premium (MIP). On less than 20
percent down on conventional loans it is called Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). VA
loans have an additional Funding Fee. All of these add to your cost and detract from the
amount of mortgage for which you qualify.
Prevention/Solution
To learn what your income to debt ratios may be, contact a mortgage professional and
ask to be preapproved. Prequalified is not the same as preapproved--which means your
file has gone through some underwriting and you’ll know exactly what amount of your
income should be used for a mortgage. Consider also that you can contact the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a housing counselor who
can guide you, at no cost, as you go through the mortgage process.
Benefits
For first-time home buyers, CalHFA (California's Consumer Home Mortgage
Organization) offers lower than market interest rate programs and downpayment
assistance programs to qualifying home buyers.
Page 246 of 289

Calculating the Percentage of Each Partner’s
Contribution to the Mortgage
by John C Johnson III
Now, having said all that, the question becomes how much of each partners’ income
should go toward the twenty-five to thirty-six percent (25% - 36%) mortgage.
The simplest way to calculate this would be to determine what percentage of each
partner’s income makes up the total household income. For example, when I was in
professional school,
I was blessed to bring-in around 75% of our household earnings. Therefore, we
reasoned, that I should bear around 75% of the household debts, including rent. Using
this formula, we were able to live quite comfortably and, for the most part anyway, I was
able to pay cash for my professional education, leaving absolutely no student loan debt
at the end of my schooling.
And I was able, therefore, to pursue my professional passions without the anxieties of
having to consider the financial drain most people in my position had, after graduation.
Talk about a major blessing!!!
5. Finally, Flexibility Dictates that Job Adjustments Will
Trigger Re-Alignment of the Formula and Either Increase
or Decrease the Mortgage Term and the Monthly
Payments
Traditional Mortgage Modification and Debt Restructuring
Mortgage modification is a process where the terms of a mortgage are modified
outside the original terms of the contract agreed to by the lender and borrower (i.e.
mortgagee and mortgagor). In general, any loan can be modified, and the general
process is referred to as loan modification or debt rescheduling.
In the normal progression of a mortgage, payments of interest and principal are made
until the mortgage is paid in full (or paid off). Typically, until the mortgage is paid, the
lender holds a lien on the property and if the borrower sells the property before the
mortgage is paid-off, the unpaid balance of the mortgage is remitted to the lender to
release the lien. Generally speaking, any change to the mortgage terms is a
modification, but as the term is used it refers to a change in terms based upon either the
specific inability of the borrower to remain current on payments as stated in the
mortgage, or more generally government mandate to lenders. A loan modification will
Page 247 of 289

typically result in the change to the loan's monthly payment, interest rate, term or
outstanding principal.
Types of modification
Mortgages are modified to the benefit of the borrower in one or more of the following
ways:
Reduction in interest rate, or a change from a floating to a fixed rate, or in how
the floating rate is computed
Reduction in principal
Reduction in the monthly payment
Reduction in late fees or other penalties
Lengthening of the loan term
Capping the monthly payment to a percentage of household income
Mortgage forbearance program
The borrower can be current, late, in default, in bankruptcy, or in foreclosure at the time
the application for modification is made. The programs available will vary accordingly.
There may be modifications made at the discretion of the lender. The lender is
motivated to offer better terms to the borrower because of the expectation that the
borrower might be able to afford a lower payment, and that a performing loan (i.e. one in
which payments are current) will be more valuable ultimately than the proceeds
obtained from a foreclosure sale.
The state and federal government may structure a mortgage modification program as
voluntary on the part of the lender, but may provide incentives for the lender to
participate. A mandatory mortgage modification program requires the lender to modify
mortgages meeting the criteria with respect to the borrower, the property, and the loan
payment history.
Federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)
Program Formed
February 18, 2009
Program purpose
Home Affordable Modification Program, also known as HAMP, is set out to help up
from 7 to 8 million struggling homeowners at risk of foreclosure by working with their
lenders to lower monthly mortgage payments. The Program is part of the Making Home
Affordable Program which was created by the Financial Stability Act of 2009. The
program was built as collaboration with banks, services, credit unions, the FHA, the VA,
Page 248 of 289

the USDA and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to create standard loan
modification guidelines for lenders to take into consideration when evaluating a
borrower for a potential loan modification. Over 110 major lenders have already signed
onto the program. The Program is now looked upon as the industry standard practice
for lenders to analyze potential modification applicants.
Eligibility Requirements
The program abides by the following eligibility and verification criteria:
Loans originated on or before January 1, 2009
First-lien loans on owner-occupied properties with unpaid principal balance up to
$729,750
Higher limits allowed for owner-occupied properties with 2-4 units
All borrowers must fully document income, including signed IRS 4506-T, proof of
income (i.e. paystubs or tax returns), and must sign an affidavit of financial
hardship
Property owner occupancy status will be verified through borrower credit report
and other documentation; no investor-owned, vacant, or condemned properties
Page 249 of 289

Incentives to lenders and servicers to modify at risk borrowers who have not yet
missed payments when the servicer determines that the borrower is at imminent
risk of default
Modifications can start from now until December 31, 2012; loans can be modified
only once under the program
Terms and Procedures
Participating servicers are required to service all eligible loans under the rules of
the program unless explicitly prohibited by contract; servicers are required to use
reasonable efforts to obtain waivers of limits on participation.
Participating loan servicers will be required to use a net present value (NPV) test
on each loan that is at risk of imminent default or at least 60 days delinquent. The
NPV test will compare the net present value of cash flows with modification and
without modification. If the test is positive: meaning that the net present value of
expected cash flow is greater in the modification scenario: the servicer must
modify absent fraud or a contract prohibition.
Parameters of the NPV test are spelled out in the guidelines, including
acceptable discount rates, property valuation methodologies, home price
appreciation assumptions, foreclosure costs and timelines, and borrower cure
and redefault rate assumptions.
Servicers will follow a specified sequence of steps in order to reduce the monthly
payment to no more than 31% of gross monthly income (DTI).
The modification sequence requires first reducing the interest rate (subject to a
rate floor of 2%), then if necessary extending the term or amortization of the loan
up to a maximum of 40 years, and then if necessary forbearing principal.
Principal forgiveness or a Hope for Homeowners refinancing are acceptable
alternatives.
The monthly payment includes principal, interest, taxes, insurance, flood
insurance, homeowner’s association and/or condominium fees. Monthly income
includes wages, salary, overtime, fees, commissions, tips, social security,
pensions, and all other income.
Servicers must enter into the program agreements with Treasury's financial agent
on or before December 31, 2009.
Payments
The program will share with the lender/investor the cost of reductions in monthly
payments from 38% DTI to 31% DTI.
Servicers that modify loans according to the guidelines will receive an up-front
fee of $1,000 for each modification, plus “pay for success” fees on stillperforming
loans of $1,000 per year.
Homeowners who make their payments on time are eligible for up to $1,000 of
principal reduction payments each year for up to five years.
Page 250 of 289

The program will provide one-time bonus incentive payments of $1,500 to
lender/investors and $500 to servicers for modifications made while a borrower is
still current on mortgage payments.
The program will include incentives for extinguishing second liens on loans
modified under this program.
No payments will be made under the program to the lender/investor, servicer, or
borrower unless and until the servicer has first entered into the program
agreements with Treasury’s financial agent.
Similar incentives will be paid for Hope for Homeowner refinances.
Warnings
of the program.
Transparency and Accountability
Measures to prevent and detect fraud, such as
documentation and audit requirements, will be
central to the program.
Servicers will be required to collect, maintain and
transmit records for verification and compliance
review, including borrower eligibility,
underwriting, incentive payments, property
verification, and other documentation.
Freddie Mac is appointed the compliance officer
Foreclosure rescue and mortgage modification scams are a growing problem.
Homeowners must protect themselves so they do not lose money or their home.
Scammers make promises that they cannot keep, such as guarantees to “save” your
home or lower your mortgage, often for a fee. Scammers may pretend that they have
direct contact with your mortgage servicer when they do not.
Scams
After the beginning of the subprime mortgage crisis, unscrupulous mortgage
professionals began setting up "Foreclosure rescue" companies promising for a large
fee to persuade lenders to modify desperate homeowners' mortgages. Nonprofit
housing counselors approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
will help borrowers for free; additionally, many states are enacting legislation which
forces loan modification companies to become licensed and bonded to legally remain in
business, eliminating many fraudulent operations that charge fees.
Resources
There are free resources available for potential applicants.
Page 251 of 289

The Federal government provides free resources to get you the help you need.
Homeowners can call the Homeowner’s HOPE Hotline at 1-888-995-HOPE
(4673) for information about the Making Home Affordable Program and to speak
with a HUD approved housing counselor. Assistance is available in English and
Spanish, and other languages by appointment.
HUD.org is another free website where you may go to find a local counselor in
your region. HUD.gov
MakingHomeAffordable.gov also has many resources for you to check online. It
allows you to compute estimated payments as well as has other resources.
Making Home Affordable
Fannie Mae has a tool available where you can check to see if your loan is
owned by Fannie Mae and thus potentially eligible for the program Fannie Mae
Loan Look Up
Freddie Mac has a tool available where you can check to see if your loan is
owned by Freddie Mac and thus potentially eligible for the program Freddie Mac
Loan Look Up
Hardest Hit Funds
The housing crisis that began in 2007 led to unprecedented home price declines and
sustained and higher unemployment in certain parts of the country. Families in these
areas have been particularly hard hit by this crisis as they have struggled to make their
monthly mortgage payments and grappled with deeply underwater mortgages.
First announced in February 2010, the Hardest Hit Fund provides $7.6 billion to the 18
hardest hit states, plus the District of Columbia, to develop locally-tailored programs to
assist struggling homeowners in their communities.
HHF programs are designed and administered by each state’s Housing Finance Agency
(HFA). Most of these programs are aimed at helping unemployed homeowners remain
in their homes while they search for new employment and those who owe more on their
mortgage than their home is worth. State HFAs have until the end of 2017 to utilize
funds allocated under HHF.
Loan Modifications
Those struggling with mortgage payments are able to request modifications from the
mortgage providers. While requirements will vary depending on who the mortgage
providers are, some criteria are common. Applicants requesting modifications must be:
experiencing a documented financial hardship. This can include being laid off.
missing several payments already.
the owner of the residence, and the mortgage must be for a primary residence.
still financial secure, so as not to have filed for bankruptcy yet.
Page 252 of 289

Our Program, however, is different.
Put simply, life-adjustments will necessarily trigger re-alignment of the new mortgage
initiative. Let’s say, for example, that Partner B experiences a job-adjustment (such as
a layoff or pay reduction).
In such an event, Partner B would not be able to contribute as much to the Home
Mortgage as s/he did prior to the adjustment. Partner B’s contribution should remain the
same percentage-wise however, in order for her/him to remain comfortable in the level
of contribution.
Partner A, on the other hand, should not be required to change her/his level of
contribution, percentage-wise, so, therefore, the only factor that can be adjusted is the
overall amount of the Home Mortgage payment, which can be adjusted by extending the
Mortgage Term to meet the new split-percentage of overall income threshold.
1. The Interest Rate for This New Home-Mortgage Initiative
Is Limited to Fluctuations in The GDP
The only interest factored into this new Home-Mortgage Initiative is limited to Market
conditions, in order to keep-pace with the base monetary valuation. In the United
States, for example, a dollar value increase will trigger a Home-Mortgage Rate
decrease, and vice-versa.
A dollar value
decrease will
trigger a Home-
Mortgage Rate
increase. Each
decrease or
increase shall be
commensurate
with
the
percentage
decrease or
increase
experienced by
the market rate.
Everyone wins in
this scenario.
The homeowners retain their home, as well as the ability to provide for their families at
rates and payments they can truly afford, regardless of changes in their circumstances.
Page 253 of 289

The Mortgagor continues to receive regular payment, adjusted for contingencies and
market fluctuations through to the full-term of the mortgage.
Page 254 of 289

XI. References
1. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/ten-facts-about-homelessn_b_5977946.html
2. https://projecthome.org/about/facts-homelessness
3. https://list25.com/25-hard-to-swallow-facts-about-homelessness/
4. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/employment.html
5. https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/04/04/homeless-youth-unemployment-is-ninetimes-the-national-average_a_22026299/
6. https://www.apnews.com/d480434bbacd4b028ff13cd1e7cea155
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor
8. https://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2016/09/5-myths-about-the-working-poor-inamerica/
9. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/19/working-poor-stories_n_5297694.html
10. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/working-poor/2015/home.htm
11. http://homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/topics/mental-health
12. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-mentally-ill-homeless-20170807-htmlstory.html
13. https://www.healthyplace.com/other-info/mental-illness-overview/mental-illness-andhomelessness
14. https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hcht/blog/homelessness-and-mental-health-facts
15. http://www.newsweek.com/affordable-housing-crisis-forces-us-homeless-numbers-firsttime-great-739333
16. https://www.usich.gov/solutions/housing/affordable-housing
17. http://www.businessinsider.com/affordable-housing-crisis-homelessness-us-2018-3
18. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policydatabase/2018/01/18/housing-and-homelessness-as-a-public-health-issue
19. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_research_022414.html
20. http://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/pennsylvania_homeless_assistan.html
21. http://nationalhomeless.org/references/directory/region/AZ/
Page 255 of 289

22. https://www.voa.org/homeless-people
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_shelter
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
25. http://nationalhomeless.org/issues/civil-rights/
26. https://www.nlchp.org/criminalization
27. http://nlihc.org/article/criminalization-homelessness-increases-us-cities
28. https://theappeal.org/the-criminalization-of-homelessness-an-explainer-aa074d25688d/
29. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causeshomelessness/housing/
30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
31. http://home.uchicago.edu/kczerniak/Economics%20of%20Homelessness.pdf
32. http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0501rpt.pdf
33. https://www.strategiestoendhomelessness.org/wpcontent/themes/stehTheme/docs/Data%20Page/Economics%20of%20Homelessness%202016.
pdf
Page 256 of 289

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 257 of 289

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 258 of 289

Page 259 of 289

Attachment A
Homeless Assessment Report to
Congress 2017
Page 260 of 289

The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
PART 1:
Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness
The 2017 Annual Homeless
Assessment Report (AHAR)
to Congress
DECEMBER 2017

DRAFT
Acknowledgements
AUTHORS:
Meghan Henry, Rian Watt, Lily Rosenthal, and Azim Shivji, Abt Associates
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:
Dr. Jill Khadduri, Abt Associates, and Dr. Dennis Culhane, National Center on Homelessness among Veterans,
University of Pennsylvania
DATA COLLECTION MANAGERS:
Azim Shivji and Rian Watt, Abt Associates
DATA COLLECTORS AND REVIEWERS:
Korrin Bishop, Molly Brune, Tanya de Sousa, Marissa Hashizume, Tyler Morrill, Arturo Nava,
Jillian Ouellette, Lily Rosenthal, Azim Shivji, Aubrey Sitler, Djaniele Taylor, and Rian Watt, Abt Associates, and
Dan Treglia and Kalen Flynn, University of Pennsylvania
PROGRAMMERS/ANALYSTS:
Azim Shivji and Tyler Morrill, Abt Associates, and Jon-Paul Oliva, GIS and Data Quality Consultant
REVIEWERS:
Dr. Larry Buron, Abt Associates
Dr. Alvaro Cortes, Abt Associates
Karen DeBlasio and William Snow, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
DESIGN AND PRODUCTION:
Malcolm Jones, Abt Associates

Contents
Key Findings.................................... 1
Definition of Terms .............................. 2
Progress on the Preventing and
Ending Homelessness............................ 4
About this Report............................... 6
SECTION 1
Homelessness in the United States................. 7
National Estimates ......................................... 8
State Estimates ........................................... 12
Estimates by CoC ......................................... 16
SECTION 2
Homeless Individuals............................ 20
National Estimates ........................................20
State Estimates ........................................... 24
Estimates by CoC ......................................... 28
SECTION 3
Homeless Families with Children.................. 32
National Estimates ........................................32
State Estimates ...........................................36
Estimates by CoC .........................................40
SECTION 4
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth ................. 44
National Estimates ........................................44
State Estimates ...........................................46
Estimates by CoC .........................................48
SECTION 5
Homeless Veterans............................. 52
National Estimates ........................................ 52
State Estimates ...........................................54
Estimates by CoC .........................................58
SECTION 6
Chronically Homeless Individuals.................. 62
National Estimates ........................................62
State Estimates ...........................................64
Estimates by CoC .........................................68
SECTION 7
National Inventory of Beds....................... 72
Appendix..................................... 78

Key Findings
On a single night in 2017, 553,742 people were
experiencing homelessness in the United States.
For every 10,000 people in the country, 17 were
experiencing homelessness. Approximately twothirds
(65%) were staying in emergency shelters
or transitional housing programs, and about onethird
(35%) were in unsheltered locations.
Homelessness increased for the first time in
seven years. The number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by a little less than one
percent between 2016 and 2017. This increase
reflected a nine percent increase in the number of
people experiencing homelessness in unsheltered
locations, which was partially offset by a
three percent decline in the number of people
experiencing homelessness in sheltered locations.
Recent increases in homelessness were driven
mostly by specific changes happening within
cities. Increases in the numbers of unsheltered
individuals in the 50 largest cities accounted for
nearly all of the national increase.
The number of people experiencing
homelessness in families with children declined
by five percent between 2016 and 2017—
10,055 fewer people and 3,294 fewer family
households. As of 2017, 184,661 people in families
with children were experiencing homelessness,
33 percent of the homeless population.
In 2017, 40,799 people were experiencing
homelessness as unaccompanied youth—that
is, people under the age of 25 experiencing
homelessness on their own. Most unaccompanied
youth (88%) were between the ages of 18 and
24. Unaccompanied youth were more likely
to be unsheltered (55%) than both all people
experiencing homelessness (35%) and all people
experiencing homelessness as individuals (48%).
Between 2016 and 2017, the number of veterans
experiencing homelessness increased for the
first time since 2010. Nonetheless, homelessness
among veterans dropped 45 percent since 2009.
The two percent increase during the past year
was almost entirely accounted for by increases
among unsheltered veterans in major cities.
There were 12 percent more individuals with
chronic patterns of homelessness in 2017 than
in 2016, but has declined by 27 percent since
2007. Unlike other increases in the last year, the
increase in chronic homelessness included both
sheltered populations (8% increase) and unsheltered
populations (14% increase).
Percent of Homeless People
By Household Type and Sheltered Status, 2017
People in
Families,
Unsheltered
People in
Families,
Sheltered
3%
35% Unsheltered
30%
32%
35%
Individuals,
Sheltered
65% Sheltered
Individuals,
Unsheltered
2017 PIT
Estimate:
Change from
2016
All People
Individuals
Families with
Children
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
Veterans
Individuals
with Chronic
Patterns of
Homelessness
553,742 369,081 184,661 40,799 40,056 86,962
+1% +4% -5% +2% +12%
1

Definition of Terms
Please note: Key terms are used for AHAR reporting purposes and accurately reflect the data used in this
report. Definitions of these terms may differ in some ways from the definitions found in the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act and in HUD regulations.
Chronically Homeless Individual refers to
an individual with a disability who has been
continuously homeless for one year or more
or has experienced at least four episodes of
homelessness in the last three years where
the combined length of time homeless in those
occasions is at least 12 months.
Chronically Homeless People in Families
refers to people in families in which the head
of household has a disability and has either
been continuously homeless for one year or
more or has experienced at least four episodes
of homelessness in the last three years where
the combined length of time homeless in those
occasions is at least 12 months.
Continuums of Care (CoC) are local planning
bodies responsible for coordinating the full range
of homelessness services in a geographic area,
which may cover a city, county, metropolitan area,
or an entire state.
Emergency Shelter is a facility with the primary
purpose of providing temporary shelter for
homeless people.
Homeless describes a person who lacks a fixed,
regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
Housing Inventory Count (HIC) is produced
by each CoC and provides an annual inventory
of beds that assist people in the CoC who
are experiencing homelessness or leaving
homelessness.
Individual refers to a person who is not part
of a family with children during an episode of
homelessness. Individuals may be homeless
as single adults, unaccompanied youth, or in
multiple-adult or multiple-child households.
Other Permanent Housing is housing with or
without services that is specifically for formerly
homeless people but that does not require people
to have a disability.
Parenting Youth are people under age 25 who
are the parents or legal guardians of one or more
children (under age 18) who are present with or
sleeping in the same place as that youth parent,
where there is no person over age 24 in the
household.
Parenting Youth Household is a household
with at least one parenting youth and the child
or children for whom the parenting youth is the
parent or legal guardian.
People in Families with children are people
who are homeless as part of a household that has
at least one adult (age 18 and older) and one child
(under age 18).
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is a
housing model designed to provide housing
assistance (project- and tenant-based) and
supportive services on a long-term basis to
formerly homeless people. HUD’s Continuum of
Care program, authorized by the McKinney-Vento
Act, funds PSH and requires that the client have a
disability for eligibility.
Point-in-Time Counts are unduplicated 1-night
estimates of both sheltered and unsheltered
homeless populations. The 1-night counts are
conducted by CoCs nationwide and occur during
the last week in January of each year.
Rapid Rehousing is a housing model designed
to provide temporary housing assistance to
people experiencing homelessness, moving them
quickly out of homelessness and into permanent
housing.
Safe Havens provide temporary shelter and
services to hard-to-serve individuals.
Sheltered Homelessness refers to people who
are staying in emergency shelters, transitional
housing programs, or safe havens.
Transitional Housing Programs provide
people experiencing homelessness a place to stay
combined with supportive services for up to 24
months.
2

Unaccompanied Homeless Youth (under 18) are
people in households with only children who are
not part of a family with children or accompanied
by their parent or guardian during their episode of
homelessness, and who are under the age of 18.
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth (18-24) are
people in households without children who are
not part of a family with children or accompanied
by their parent or guardian during their episode
of homelessness, and who are between the ages
of 18 and 24.
Unsheltered Homelessness refers to people
whose primary nighttime location is a public or
private place not designated for, or ordinarily used
as, a regular sleeping accommodation for people
(for example, the streets, vehicles, or parks).
Veteran refers to any person who served on
active duty in the armed forces of the United
States. This includes Reserves and National Guard
members who were called up to active duty.
3

Progress on Preventing and Ending
Homelessness
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and other federal agencies
collaborate with state and local partners to
prevent and end homelessness across the country.
This coordinated effort to end homelessness
continues to be a key to making progress to
preventing and ending homelessness.
GOAL
Prevent and end chronic
homelessness
• The number of individuals experiencing
chronic homelessness declined by 18 percent,
or over 19,000 people, between 2010 and 2017.
• Just under 87,000 individuals experiencing
homelessness on a particular night in
January 2017 had chronic patterns of
homelessness. Nearly seven in ten
individuals experiencing chronic
homelessness were staying outdoors, in
abandoned buildings, or other locations
not suitable for human habitation rather than
staying in shelters, reflecting the high
degree of vulnerability of this population.
• In 2017, there were nearly 94,000 more
permanent supportive housing (PSH) beds
dedicated to people with chronic patterns of
homelessness than there were in 2010.
GOAL
Prevent and end homelessness
among Veterans
• Between 2010 and 2017, the number of
veterans experiencing homelessness was cut
nearly in half. Veteran homelessness has
dropped by 46 percent, or by more than 34,000
people since 2010.
• On a single night in January 2017, just more
than 40,000 veterans were experiencing
homelessness. A majority (62%) were staying
in emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs.
GOAL
Prevent and end homelessness for
families, youth, and children
• In January 2017, about 185,000 people in
families with children experienced
homelessness, about 57,000 fewer people than
in 2010, a 24 percent decline.
• Just fewer than 22,000 people were in families
with children in which the head of household
was under the age of 25
• More than 40,000 people under the age of 25
were unaccompanied youth—that is, homeless
on their own rather than as part of a family.
About 36,000 youth between the ages
of 18 and 24 were homeless by themselves, as
were about 4,800 youth under the age of 18.
GOAL
Set a path to ending all types of
homelessness
• In January 2017, almost 554,000 people were
homeless on a single night, with nearly
two-thirds (65%) found in emergency shelters
or transitional housing programs.
• While the number of people experiencing
homelessness increased by just under one
percent between 2016 and 2017, homelessness
has declined by more than 83,000 people since
2010, a 13 percent reduction. The recent
increase in homelessness is attributable to an
increase in the number of individuals staying
in unsheltered locations in major cities.
4

5

About This Report
The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) releases the Annual
Homeless Assessment Report to Congress
(AHAR) in two parts. Part 1 provides Point-in-
Time (PIT) estimates, offering a snapshot of
homelessness—both sheltered and unsheltered—
on a single night. The one-night counts are
conducted during the last 10 days of January each
year. The PIT counts also provide an estimate of
the number of people experiencing homelessness
within particular homeless populations, such as
people with chronic patterns of homelessness and
veterans experiencing homelessness.
This year serves as the baseline year for
estimates of unaccompanied youth, that is,
people under the age of 25 who are experiencing
homelessness on their own, not in the company
of their parent or guardian, and who are not part
of a family. Also for the first time this year, Part
1 of the AHAR includes some examination of the
changes in demographic characteristics of people
experiencing homelessness.
To understand our nation’s capacity to serve
people who are currently or formerly experiencing
homelessness, this report also provides counts of
beds in emergency shelters, transitional housing
programs, safe havens, rapid rehousing programs,
permanent supportive housing programs, and
other permanent housing.
In 2017, the PIT estimates of people experiencing
homelessness in sheltered and unsheltered
locations, as well as the number of beds available
to serve them, were reported by 399 Continuums
of Care (CoC) nationwide. These 399 CoCs
covered virtually the entire United States. The
Northern Mariana Islands are the newest CoC
and reported PIT and HIC data for the first time
in 2017.
HUD has methodological standards for conducting
the PIT counts, and CoCs use a variety of
approved methods to produce the counts. The
guide for PIT methodologies can be found here:
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/4036/
point-in-time-count-methodology-guide. HUD
reviews the data for accuracy and quality prior to
creating the estimates for this report.
6

Estimates of Homelessness
IN THE UNITED STATES
7

1National Estimates
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 1.1: PIT Estimates of People
Experiencing Homelessness
By Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
647,258 639,784 630,227 637,077 623,788 621,553
590,364 576,450 564,708 549,928 553,742
391,401 386,361 403,308 403,543 392,316 390,155 394,698 401,051 391,440 373,571 360,867
255,857 253,423
226,919 233,534 231,472 231,398
195,666
175,399 173,268 176,357 192,875
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
All Homeless People
Sheltered People
Unsheltered People
On a Single Night in January 2017
• 553,742 people were experiencing
homelessness in the United States.
• Most (65% or 360,867 people) were staying
in emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs, while 35 percent (192,875 people)
were staying in unsheltered locations.
• Two in three people experiencing
homelessness (67%) were adults in households
without children. The remaining 33 percent of
people experiencing homelessness did so as
part of a family.
• For every 10,000 people in the United States, 17
were experiencing homelessness.
Demographic Characteristics
• In 2017, over one-fifth of people experiencing
homelessness were children (21% or 114,829),
70 percent were over the age of 24, and ten
percent were between the ages of 18 and 24.
• Children rarely were unsheltered. Nine in ten
children experiencing homelessness were
staying in emergency shelters or transitional
housing programs.
• Just under 61 percent of people experiencing
homelessness (335,038 people) were men, and
39 percent (215,709 people) were women. Fewer
than one percent were either transgender
(2,092) or did not identify as male, female, or
transgender (903).
• Gender varied by sheltered status. People
staying in unsheltered locations were more
likely to be men (71%), while people staying
in emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs were somewhat more likely to be
women (55%).
• Nearly half of all people experiencing
homelessness identified their race as white
(47% or 260,979 people). Most other people
experiencing homelessness identified as
African American (41% or 224,937 people).
Seven percent (35,745 people) of people
experiencing homelessness identified
themselves as multiracial. One in five people
experiencing homelessness (22% or 119,419
people) was Hispanic or Latino.
• Demographic characteristics varied by
sheltered status. For example, people
experiencing homelessness in unsheltered
locations were more likely to be white (55%)
than people in sheltered locations (43%). By
comparison, people in sheltered locations were
more likely to be African American (46%) than
people in unsheltered locations (30%).
EXHIBIT 1.2: Homelessness
By Household Type and Sheltered Status, 2017
People in
Families,
Unsheltered
People in
Families,
Sheltered
3%
35% Unsheltered
30%
32%
35%
Individuals,
Sheltered
65% Sheltered
Individuals,
Unsheltered
8

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 1.3: Demographic Characteristics of People Experiencing Homelessness
2017
All Homeless People Sheltered People Unsheltered People
# % # % # %
Total 553,742 100 360,867 100 192,875 100
Age
Under 18 114,829 20.7 103,289 28.6 11,540 6.0
18 to 24 53,438 9.7 31,742 8.8 21,696 11.2
Over 24 385,475 69.6 225,836 62.6 159,639 82.8
Gender
Female 215,709 39.0 160,606 44.5 55,103 28.6
Male 335,038 60.5 198,935 55.1 136,103 70.6
Transgender 2,092 0.4 1,100 0.3 992 0.5
Does not identify
as male, female or
transgender
Ethnicity
903 0.2 226 0.1 677 0.4
Non-Hispanic 434,323 78.4 285,867 79.2 148,456 77.0
Hispanic 119,419 21.6 75,000 20.8 44,419 23.0
Race
White 260,979 47.1 154,489 42.8 106,490 55.2
African American 224,937 40.6 167,489 46.4 57,448 29.8
Asian 6,760 1.2 3,703 1.0 3,057 1.6
Native American 16,796 3.0 8,724 2.4 8,072 4.2
Pacific Islander 8,525 1.5 4,485 1.2 4,040 2.1
Multiple Races 35,745 6.5 21,977 6.1 13,768 7.1
EXHIBIT 1.4: Change in Number of People Experiencing Homelessness
2007–2017
Change 2016–2017 Change 2010–2017 Change 2007–2017
# % # % # %
Total 3,814 0.7 -83,335 -13.1 -93,516 -14.4
Sheltered People -12,704 -3.4 -42,676 -10.6 -30,534 -7.8
Unsheltered People 16,518 9.4 -40,659 -17.4 -62,982 -24.6
9

1National Estimates
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 1.5: Change in Homelessness
By Age and Sheltered Status, 2016–2017
All Homeless
People
Sheltered
People
Unsheltered
People
# % # % # %
Total 3,814 0.7% -12,704 -3.4% 16,518 9.4%
Under 18 -5,990 -5.0% -5,577 -5.1% -413 -3.5%
18 to 24 3,437 6.9% -1,539 -4.6% 4,976 29.8%
Over 24 6,367 1.7% -5,588 -2.4% 11,955 8.1%
Since 2016
• Homelessness increased by one percent (or
3,814 people) overall between 2016 and 2017.
• An increase in people staying in unsheltered
locations accounts for the entire overall
increase. Although the number of people
staying in emergency shelters or transitional
housing programs decreased for the third
straight year (by 12,704 people, or 3%
between 2016 and 2017), the number of people
experiencing homelessness in unsheltered
locations increased for a second straight year
(by 16,518 people, or 9% between 2016 and
2017).
• Homelessness declined among children but
increased among adults, especially younger
adults. The number of children experiencing
homelessness declined by five percent (5,990
people), but homelessness increased by seven
percent (3,437) among those ages 18 to 24 and
by two percent (6,367) among those ages 24
and older.
An increase in people staying in
unsheltered locations accounted
for the entire increase in people
experiencing homelessness
between 2016 and 2017.
• Homelessness declined among women but
increased among both men and people
identifying as transgender. The number of
women experiencing homelessness declined
by one percent (1,559 people), while the
number of men increased by one percent (4,148
people) and the number of transgender people
experiencing homelessness increased by 18
percent (or 322 people).
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness who identified as Hispanic or
Latino declined between 2016 and 2017, by
two percent overall (or 1,880 people) and by
14 percent for sheltered people (or 12,141).
However, the number of people who were
Hispanic and staying in unsheltered locations
increased by 30 percent (or 10,261 people)
between 2016 and 2017.
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness increased overall among people
who identified as African American (by 5%),
and declined slightly among people who
identified as white (by 2%).
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness in unsheltered locations increased
for all racial groups except for those who identify
as Pacific Islander or multi-racial. The largest
increases were among people who identified as
Asian (44%) and African American (23%).
Since 2007
• Homelessness declined by 14 percent (93,516
people) overall between 2007 and 2017.
• Despite the increase in people experiencing
homelessness in unsheltered locations between
2016 and 2017, the decline in homelessness
over the longer period, 2007-2017, reflected
the large decreases among people staying
in unsheltered locations. The number of
unsheltered people declined by 25 percent
(62,982 people) over the ten-year period, while
the number staying in emergency shelters or
transitional housing programs declined by
eight percent (30,534 people).
10

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
11

1State Estimates
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Half of all people experiencing homelessness
did so in one of five states: California (25%
or 134,278 people); New York (16% or 89,503
people); Florida (6% or 32,190 people); Texas
(4% or 23,548 people); or Washington (4% or
21,112 people).
• California and New York, the states with
the largest numbers of people experiencing
homelessness, also had high rates of
homelessness, 34 and 45 people per 10,000,
compared to the national average of 17 people
per 10,000. Washington and Massachusetts
also had high rates (29 and 26 people per
10,000). While Florida and Texas had among
the highest numbers of people experiencing
homelessness, they had rates lower than the
national average.
• California accounted for nearly half of all
unsheltered people in the country in 2017
(49% or 91,642 people). Florida had the second
highest share of the unsheltered homeless
population in the U.S., with eight percent
(15,079 people).
• In four states, more than half of all people
experiencing homelessness lived in
unsheltered locations: California (68%), Nevada
(58%), Oregon (57%), and Hawaii (53%).
• In two states, fewer than five percent of all
people experiencing homelessness did so
without shelter. In Iowa, just four percent
of people experiencing homelessness were
unsheltered (104 people), while in Nebraska,
just under five percent of people experiencing
homelessness were unsheltered (120 people).
EXHIBIT 1.6: Estimates of Homeless People
By State, 2017
WA
21,112
MT
1,529
OR
13,953 ID
2,037
WY
873
NV
7,833 UT
2,852 CO
10,940
CA
134,278
AZ NM
8,947 2,482
AK
1,845
ME, 2,280
ND
VT, 1,225
1,089 MN
NH, 1,456
7,668
NY MA, 17,565
SD
WI
943
5,027 MI
89,503 RI, 1,180
9,051
CT, 3,388
IA
PA
NE 2,756 IL OH 14,138 NJ, 8,536
2,501
10,798 IN 10,095
DE, 994
5,438 WV MD, 7,247
VA
KS MO
KY 1,309 6,067
DC, 7,473
2,287 6,037 4,025
NC, 8,962
Share of Homeless Population
OK
TN, 8,309
AR
4,199
SC
Less than 1%
2,467
3,916
MS AL
1%–2.9%
GA
1,472 3,793
TX
10,174
3%–6%
23,548 LA
Greater than 6%
3,305
FL 32,190
HI
7,220
12

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 1.7: States with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered People
Experiencing Homelessness
2017
Highest Rates
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA
OREGON
HAWAII
MISSISSIPPI
68.2%
58.4%
57.1%
52.6%
48.8%
134,278 Homeless
91,642 Unsheltered
7,883 Homeless
4,578 Unsheltered
13,953 Homeless
7,967 Unsheltered
7,220 Homeless
3,800 Unsheltered
1,472 Homeless
719 Unsheltered
Lowest Rates
IOWA
NEBRASKA
NEW YORK
MASSACHUSETTS
RHODE ISLAND
3.8%
4.8%
5.1%
5.6%
5.8%
2,756 Homeless
104 Unsheltered
2,501 Homeless
120 Unsheltered
89,503 Homeless
4,555 Unsheltered
17,565 Homeless
991 Unsheltered
1,180 Homeless
69 Unsheltered
EXHIBIT 1.8: Largest Changes in Homelessness by State
By State, 2007–2017
2016–2017 2007–2017
Largest Increases
CALIFORNIA 16,136 / 13.7% NEW YORK 26,902 / 43.0%
NEW YORK 3,151 / 3.6% MASSACHUSETTS 2,438 / 16.1%
OREGON 715 / 5.4% DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2,153 / 40.5%
NEVADA 435 / 5.9% HAWAII 1,150 / 18.9%
TEXAS 426 / 1.8% MONTANA 379 / 33.0%
Largest Decreases
GEORGIA -2,735 / -21.2% TEXAS -16,240 / -40.8%
MASSACHUSETTS -2,043 / -10.4% FLORIDA -15,879 / -33.0%
FLORIDA -1,369 / -4.1% GEORGIA -9,465 / -48.2%
PENNSYLVANIA -1,201 / -7.8% NEW JERSEY -8,778 / -50.7%
SOUTH CAROLINA -1,135 / -22.5% ARIZONA -5,699 / -38.9%
a
Due to methodological changes, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, and Wyoming were excluded from the list of largest
decreases from 2007-2017.
13

1State Estimates
Homelessness in the United States
Changes Over Time
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness declined in 30 states and
the District of Columbia between 2016 and
2017. The largest absolute decreases were in
Georgia (2,735 fewer people), Massachusetts
(2,043 fewer people), and Florida (1,369 fewer
people). The largest percentage decreases were
in South Carolina (23%), Georgia (21%), and
Louisiana (17%).
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness increased in 20 states between
2016 and 2017. The largest absolute increases
were in California (16,136 people), New York
(3,151 people), and Oregon (715 people). The
largest percentage increases were in North
Dakota (18%), California (14%), New Mexico
(10%), and Vermont (10%).
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness declined in 36 states between
2007 and 2017. The largest decreases were
in Texas (16,240 fewer people or 41%), Florida
(15,879 people or 33%), and Georgia (9,465
people or 48%).
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness increased in 14 states, plus
the District of Columbia, between 2007 and
2017. The largest absolute increases were
in New York (26,902 more people or 43%),
Massachusetts (2,438 people or 16%), and the
District of Columbia (2,153 people or 41%).
Despite a national increase
between 2016 and 2017, the
number of people experiencing
homelessness declined in 30 states
and the District of Columbia during
that time period.
14

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
15

1Estimates by CoC
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
Continuums of Care (CoC) Were Divided
into Three Geographic Categories 1
Major city CoCs (n=48) cover the 50 largest
cities in the United States. In two cases (Phoenix
and Mesa, AZ, and Arlington and Fort Worth, TX),
two large cities were located in the same CoC.
Smaller city, county, and regional CoCs (n=306)
are jurisdictions that are neither one of the 50
largest cities in the United States nor Balance of
State or Statewide CoCs.
Balance of State (BoS) or statewide CoCs
(n=40) are typically composed of multiple rural
counties or represent an entire state.
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Nearly one of every four people experiencing
homelessness did so in New York City or
Los Angeles. Nearly all people experiencing
homelessness in New York City were sheltered
(95%). By comparison, only 25 percent of those
experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles
were sheltered in 2017.
• Some of the most populous major cities were
not among those with the largest homeless
populations. Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix
were among the five largest cities in the
country but were not among the cities with
the largest numbers of people experiencing
homelessness. In contrast, Seattle was the 18th
largest city in the country but had the third
largest homeless population. The District of
Columbia was 21st in total population and had
the fifth largest homeless population.
• In two major city CoCs, fewer than five percent
of all people experiencing homelessness did
so without shelter. Those CoCs were: Omaha/
Council Bluffs (4% or 57 people) and Boston
(3% or 186 people). In three major city CoCs, all
in California, more than 70 percent of people
experiencing homelessness were unsheltered.
Those were: Fresno/Madera County (76%), Los
Angeles (75%), and San Jose/Santa Clara (74%).
1 5 CoCs located in Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and
Northern Mariana Islands were excluded from CoC-level analysis.
EXHIBIT 1.9: Percent of People Experiencing
Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2017
Total Homeless
Population
Sheltered
Population
Unsheltered
Population
0% 100%
Major Cities
51.5
50.8
52.9 34.2
Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
34.9 13.6
35.2
14.0
12.9
Changes Over Time
• The number of all people experiencing
homelessness increased in major cities and
decreased elsewhere between 2016 and
2017. The number of people experiencing
homelessness in major cities increased by just
over five percent (13,922 people) between 2016
and 2017, driving the increase in homelessness
nationwide. More specifically, increases in
unsheltered homelessness in major cities
drove the national increase, with 17,139 more
unsheltered people in those CoCs (an increase
of 21%).
• The number of people who experienced
homelessness decreased by three percent
(6,386 fewer people) in smaller cities, counties,
and regional CoCs, and by four percent (3,308
fewer people) in balance of state (BoS) and
statewide CoCs.
• In addition to increasing in major cities, the
number of people experiencing homelessness
without shelter also increased in smaller cities,
counties, and regional CoCs between 2016 and
2017, but the number of unsheltered homeless
people declined in BoS and statewide CoCs.
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness who stayed in emergency
shelters or transitional housing decreased
across all three categories of CoCs between
16

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
2016 and 2017. The number of people
experiencing homelessness who stayed in
emergency shelters or transitional housing
programs dropped by two percent (3,217 fewer
people) in major cities, by three percent (1,624
people) in BoS and statewide CoCs, and by
six percent (7,539 people) in smaller cities,
counties, and regional CoCs.
• Across the longer time period, 2007-2017,
homelessness declined across all combinations
of CoC categories and shelter status, except
for sheltered homelessness in major cities,
which increased by four percent. Unsheltered
homelessness in major cities declined by nine
percent over the same period.
• Unsheltered homelessness in smaller cities,
counties, and regional CoCs declined by 38
percent between 2007 and 2017.
EXHIBIT 1.10: CoCs with the Largest Numbers of People Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Major City CoCs
Total
Homeless
CoC
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Total
Homeless
CoC
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
Total
Homeless
New York City, NY 76,501 Honolulu, HI 4,959 Texas Balance of State 7,153
Los Angeles City & County, CA 55,188
Seattle/King County, WA 11,643
San Diego City & County, CA 9,160
District of Columbia 7,473
San Jose/Santa Clara City &
County, CA
7,394
Santa Ana/Anaheim/Orange
County, CA
Nassau, Suffolk Counties/
Babylon/Islip/ Huntington, NY
Salinas/Monterey, San Benito
Counties, CA
Santa Rosa/Petaluma/Sonoma
County, CA
St. Petersburg/Clearwater/
Largo/Pinellas County, FL
4,792 Oregon Balance of State 5,795
3,937 Washington Balance of State 4,671
3,364 Colorado Balance of State 4,019
2,835 Georgia Balance of State 3,716
2,831 Indiana Balance of State 3,655
San Francisco, CA 6,858 Pasco County, FL 2,593 Wisconsin Balance of State 3,348
Las Vegas/Clark County, NV 6,490
Ft Lauderdale/Broward
County, FL
Boston, MA 6,135 Riverside City & County, CA 2,406
2,450 Ohio Balance of State 3,309
North Carolina Balance of
State
Philadelphia, PA 5,693 Springfield, MA 2,311 Connecticut Balance of State 2,610
3,054
17

1Estimates National by Estimates CoC
Homelessness in in the the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 1.11: CoCs with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered People
Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category, 2017
Major City CoCs
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
CoC
Total
Homeless
%
Unsheltered CoC Total
Homeless
%
Unsheltered CoC Total
Homeless
%
Unsheltered
Highest Rates
Fresno/
Madera
County, CA
2,016 75.8
Inyo, Mono,
Alpine
Counties, CA
121 95.9
Oklahoma
Balance of
State
432 67.8
Los Angeles
City &
County, CA
55,188 74.7 Pasco
County, FL
2,593 93.1
Hawaii
Balance of
State
2,261 65.3
San Jose/
Santa Clara
City &
County, CA
7,394 73.7
Lake County,
CA
401 93.0
Oregon
Balance of
State
5,795 65.0
Oakland/
Alameda
County, CA
Las Vegas/
Clark
County, NV
5,629 68.6
Fort Pierce/
St. Lucie,
Indian River,
Martin
Counties , FL
6,490 67.1 Imperial
County, CA
1,732 89.4
1,154 88.9
Colorado
Balance of
State
Nevada
Balance of
State
4,019 62.4
237 61.2
Boston, MA 6,135 3.0 Lenawee
County, MI
128 0.0
Nebraska
Balance of
State
506 2.8
Omaha/
Council
Bluffs, NE
1,389 4.1
Sioux City/
Dakota,
Woodbury
Counties, IA
288 0.7
Iowa Balance
of State
1,792 2.8
New York
City, NY
76,501 5.1 Clinton
County, NY
126 0.8
Wisconsin
Balance of
State
3,348 4.1
Memphis/
Shelby
County, TN
Indianapolis,
IN
1,426 5.5
Northwest
Minnesota,
MN
1,783 7.1 Sullivan
County, NY
288 1.0 Delaware
Statewide
167 1.2
Rhode Island
Statewide
994 5.8
1,180 5.8
18

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 1.12: People Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
200000
175,911
183,873
177,768
184,089
190,151
182,759
Major Cities, Sheltered
150000
155,291 155,569 155,291
150,647
143,781
Major Cities, Unsheltered
126,634
Smaller Cities, Counties, and
Regional CoCs, Sheltered
100000
50000
110,024
103,329
58,656
38,454
102,589
99,952
77,970 80,837
62,283
57,865
46,898
42,314
84,007
75,310
58,313
32,117
99,732
77,563
65,728 64,525
50,276
55,915
25,435 24,386
Smaller Cities, Counties, and
Regional CoCs, Unsheltered
Balance of State and
Statewide CoCs, Sheltered
Balance of State and
Statewide CoCs, Unsheltered
0
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
EXHIBIT 1.13: Change in Numbers of People Experiencing Homelessness
By Sheltered Status and CoC Category, 2016–2017
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
Major Cities 13,922 5.2 -3,217 -1.7 17,139 20.8
Smaller Cities, Counties, and
Regional CoCs
-6,386 -3.2 -7,539 -5.6 1,153 1.8
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs -3,308 -4.2 -1,624 -3.1 -1,684 -6.5
19

2National 1National Estimates
Homeless Individuals
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 2.1: PIT Estimates of
Homeless Individuals
By Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
647,258
639,784 630,227 637,077 623,788 621,553
590,364
576,450
564,708
549,928 533,742
412,700 404,525 392,131 395,140 387,613 382,156 368,174 360,189 358,422 355,212 369,081
213,073 204,855 215,995 212,218 205,834 199,159 203,127 209,148 205,616 198,008 193,144
199,627 199,670
176,136 182,922 181,779 182,997
165,047
151,041 152,806 157,204
175,937
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
All Homeless People
Total Individuals
Sheltered Individuals
Unsheltered Individuals
On a Single Night in January 2017
• There were 369,081 people experiencing
homelessness in households without children,
representing 67 percent of the total homeless
population.
• Almost half of all people experiencing
homelessness as individuals were staying in
unsheltered locations, 48 percent or 175,937
people.
• Women made up a somewhat greater share of
sheltered individuals (30%) than of unsheltered
individuals (26%).
• Across both sheltered and unsheltered people
experiencing homelessness as individuals,
19 percent identified themselves as Hispanic
or Latino. They were much more likely to
be staying in unsheltered locations than
in shelters. Almost a quarter unsheltered
individuals were Hispanic (23%) compared
to just 15 percent of sheltered individuals
identifying as Hispanic.
• Just over half of people experiencing
homelessness as individuals were white (52%
or 192,671 people). An even higher percentage
of unsheltered homeless individuals were
white (55% or 96,448 people, while African
Americans accounted for 36 percent of all
homeless individuals (or 132,399 people) but
only 31 percent of unsheltered individuals (or
53,844 people).
Demographic Characteristics
• Most individuals experiencing homelessness
(88 percent) were over the age of 24. People
between 18 and 24 years old made up just 10
percent of homeless individuals, and only one
percent of homeless individuals were under 18
years old.
• More than seven in ten people homeless as
individuals were men, 71 percent or 262,011
men. The remaining 29 percent were women
(just over 28 percent or 104,315 women),
transgender, or people who did not identify as
male, female or transgender.
20

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 2.2: Demographic Characteristics of Homeless Individuals
2017
Characteristic
All Homeless Individuals Sheltered Individuals Unsheltered Individuals
# % # % # %
Total homeless 369,081 100 193,144 100 175,937 100
Age
Under 18 5,110 1.4 2,329 1.2 2,781 1.6
18 to 24 38,030 10.3 17,891 9.3 20,139 11.4
Over 24 325,941 88.3 172,924 89.5 153,017 87.0
Gender
Female 104,315 28.3 58,017 30.0 46,298 26.3
Male 262,011 71.0 133,964 69.4 128,047 72.8
Transgender 2,007 0.5 1,030 0.5 977 0.6
Other Gender 748 0.2 133 0.1 615 0.3
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 299,960 81.3 164,692 85.3 135,268 76.9
Hispanic 69,121 18.7 28,452 14.7 40,669 23.1
Race
White 192,671 52.2 96,223 49.8 96,448 54.8
African American 132,399 35.9 78,555 40.7 53,844 30.6
Asian 4,841 1.3 2,008 1.0 2,833 1.6
Native American 12,248 3.3 4,785 2.5 7,463 4.2
Pacific Islander 4,223 1.1 1,531 0.8 2,692 1.5
Multiple Races 22,699 6.2 10,042 5.2 12,657 7.2
EXHIBIT 2.3: Change in Numbers of Homeless Individuals
By Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
Change 2016–2017 Change 2010–2017 Change 2007–2017
# % # % # %
Total Homeless Individuals 13,869 3.9 -26,059 -6.6 -43,619 -10.6
Sheltered Individuals -4,864 -2.5 -19,074 -9.0 -19,929 -9.4
Unsheltered Individuals 18,733 11.9 -6,985 -3.8 -23,690 -11.9
EXHIBIT 2.4: Change in Numbers of Homeless Individuals
By Age and Sheltered Status, 2016-2017
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
Under 18 997 24.2 -126 -5.1 1,123 67.7
18 to 24 4,179 12.3 -480 -2.6 4,659 30.1
Over 24 8,693 2.7 -4,258 -2.4 12,951 9.2
21

2National 1National Estimates
Homeless Individuals
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
Since 2016
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness as individuals—that is, in
households without children--increased
by four percent (13,869 more individuals)
between 2016 and 2017. This increase was
driven entirely by an increase in the number of
unsheltered individuals (a 12% rise). Sheltered
homelessness among individuals decreased by
4,864 people (or 3%).
• Homelessness among individuals increased
across all age groups. The number of children
(people under 18) experiencing homelessness
as individuals increased by 997, the number
of people between the ages of 18 and 24
increased by 4,179, and the number of people
homeless as individuals over the age of 24
increased by 8,693.
• For each age group, increases were driven
entirely by increases in the number of people
experiencing homelessness in unsheltered
locations, while the number of sheltered
individuals declined across all age groups.
• For people over the age of 24 experiencing
homelessness as individuals, the unsheltered
number increased by nine percent (12,951
people), while the number of those sheltered
decreased by two percent (or 4,258 fewer
people),
The increase in the number of
people experiencing homelessness
as individuals was driven entirely
by an increase in the number of
unsheltered individuals (a 12% rise).
• There were five percent more women
experiencing homelessness as individuals in
2017 than in 2016, driven by a 14 percent rise in
unsheltered women. There were three percent
more men and 11 percent more unsheltered
men. The only group for whom the rise in the
sheltered number drove an overall increase
was people who identified as transgender (310
more transgender individuals in shelter in 2017
than in 2016).
• The number of people experiencing
homelessness as individuals who identified
as Hispanic or Latino increased by 14 percent
overall, compared to two percent for non-
Hispanic or Latino individuals. Unsheltered
homelessness among Hispanic individuals
increased at a greater rate than among non-
Hispanic individuals (by 35% compared
to 6%). At the same time, the Hispanic
population experienced declines in sheltered
homelessness at a greater rate than non-
Hispanic individuals (a 7% decline compared to
a 2% decline).
• Homelessness among African American
individuals increased by six percent overall
(or 7,299 people) and by 27 percent among
the unsheltered population (or 11,399 people).
Homelessness among white individuals
increased by two percent overall (or 2,856
people) and by seven percent among the
unsheltered population (or 5,944 people).
Since 2007
• Over a longer time period, 2007-2017, individual
homelessness declined by 11 percent (43,619
fewer people). This decline was comprised
of both a decline in the number of homeless
individuals in unsheltered locations – which
dropped by 12 percent (23,690 fewer people) –
and in sheltered locations, which dropped by
nine percent (or 19,929 people).
22

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
23

2State 1National Estimates
Homeless Individuals
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 2.5: Estimates of Homeless Individuals
By State, 2017
AK
1,354
WA
14,781
OR
10,434 ID
1,309
NV
7,281 UT
1,882
CA
112,756
AZ
6,488
MT
987
WY
622
CO
7,571
NM
1,865
ME, 1,352
ND
VT, 697
832 MN
NH, 776
3,899
NY MA, 6,267
SD
WI
611
2,645 MI
37,390 RI, 802
5,628
CT, 2,208
IA
PA
NE 1,500 IL OH 8,271 NJ, 5,433
1,698
6,894 IN 6,688
DE, 615
3,623 WV MD, 5,077
1,032
VA
KS MO
KY 4,028
DC, 3,583
1,423 3,768 3,032
NC, 6,044
Share of Homeless Individuals
OK
TN, 6,137
AR
2,824
SC
Less than 1%
2,068 AL 2,896
1%–2.9%
2,985 GA
MS 7,422
3%–6%
TX
1,100
16,708
LA
Greater than 6%
2,559
FL 22,768
HI
4,535
On a Single Night in January 2017
• California accounted for 31 percent of all people
experiencing homelessness as individuals
in the United States and 51 percent of all
unsheltered individuals.
• More than half of all the nation’s homeless
individuals were in four states: California (31%
or 112,756 people), New York (10% or 37,390
people), Florida (6% or 22,768 people), and
Texas (5% or 16,708).
• In eight states, more than half of individuals
experiencing homelessness were staying in
unsheltered locations: California (78%), Hawaii
(72%), Nevada (63%), Oregon (59%), Mississippi,
(59%), Arkansas (55%), Washington (54%), and
Florida (52%).
Changes Over Time
• Between 2016 and 2017, the number of
individuals experiencing homelessness
increased in 22 states. The largest absolute
increases were in California (15,096 people),
New York (2,075 people), and Colorado (1,121
people). The states with the largest percentage
increases were North Dakota (26%), Wyoming
(20%), and New Mexico (20%).
• The number of homeless individuals declined
between 2016 and 2017 in 28 states and the
District of Columbia. The largest absolute
declines occurred in Georgia (1,843 fewer
people), Florida (1,433 fewer people), and
South Carolina (862 fewer people). The largest
percentage declines were in South Carolina
(23%), Georgia (20%), and Louisiana (19%).
• In 23 states, the number of individuals
experiencing homelessness increased between
2007 and 2017. The largest increase was in
New York (9,334 more people), a 33 percent
rise. California and Washington also had large
increases (1,804 and 1,492 more people).
• During the same ten-year period, 27 states and
the District of Columbia experienced a decline
in the number of homeless individuals. The
largest declines were experienced in Florida
(10,272), Texas (9,598), and Georgia (5,099).
24

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 2.6: States with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered Homeless Individuals,
By State, 2017
Highest Rates
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
OREGON
MISSISSIPPI
77.8%
72.3%
62.6%
58.9%
58.9%
112,756 Homeless
87,743 Unsheltered
4,535 Homeless
3,277 Unsheltered
7,281 Homeless
4,560 Unsheltered
10,434 Homeless
6,141 Unsheltered
1,100 Homeless
648 Unsheltered
Lowest Rates
IOWA
NEBRASKA
MAINE
DELAWARE
RHODE ISLAND
6.9%
7.1%
8.0%
8.5%
8.6%
1,500 Homeless
104 Unsheltered
1,698 Homeless
120 Unsheltered
1,352 Homeless
108 Unsheltered
615 Homeless
52 Unsheltered
802 Homeless
69 Unsheltered
25

2State 1National Estimates
Homeless Individuals
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 2.7: Largest Changes in Homeless Individuals
By State, 2007–2017
Largest Increases
2016–2017 2007–2017
CALIFORNIA 15,096 / 15.5% NEW YORK 9,334 / 33.3%
NEW YORK 2,075 / 5.9% CALIFORNIA 1,804 / 1.6%
COLORADO 1,121 / 17.4% WASHINGTON 1,492 / 11.2%
OREGON 1,055 / 11.2% HAWAII 1,200 / 36.0%
WASHINGTON 881 / 6.3% NEVADA 804 / 12.4%
Largest Decreases a
GEORGIA -1,843 / -19.9% FLORIDA -10,272 / -31.1%
FLORIDA -1,433 / -5.9% TEXAS -9,598 / -36.5%
SOUTH CAROLINA -862 / -22.9% GEORGIA -5,099 / -40.7%
LOUISIANA -617 / -19.4% NEW JERSEY -3,539 / -39.4%
TENNESSEE -515 / -7.7% ARIZONA -3,532 / -35.2%
a
Due to methodological changes, Michigan was excluded from the list of largest decreases from 2007-2016.
26

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
27

2Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homeless Individuals
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Major cities accounted for more than half
of all people experiencing homelessness as
individuals (52% or 282,491 people). Smaller
cities, counties, and regional CoCs accounted
for 35 percent (or 190,077 people), and BoS or
statewide CoCs had 13 percent (46,254 people).
• Three of the ten major cities with the
largest numbers of individuals experiencing
homelessness were not also among the cities
with the largest homeless populations overall.
Oakland, Denver, and Phoenix replaced Boston,
Philadelphia, and the District of Columbia as
the major cities with the largest numbers of
homeless individuals.
• Major cities accounted for a larger share of the
national total of unsheltered individuals than of
sheltered individuals (56% compared to 48%).
• Three major cities reported that more than
80 percent of homeless individuals were
unsheltered. All three were in California:
Fresno (88%), Los Angeles (84%), and San Jose
(82%).
• Of smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs,
nine reported individual unsheltered rates
exceeding 90 percent. Two of the highest rates
were in the CoC abutting Lake Okeechobee
(Hendry, Hardee, Highlands counties) in
Florida (98%) and in the Inyo, Mono, and Alpine
counties in California, which border Nevada
(97%).
• The lowest rates of unsheltered homeless
individuals in smaller cities, counties, and
regional CoCs were in Sioux City/Dakota
Woodbury Counties, IA at one percent and
Sullivan County, NY at two percent.
• The Nebraska BoS had the lowest rates of
unsheltered individuals, at five percent. Iowa
BoS also reported low rates, at six percent.
EXHIBIT 2.8: Homeless Individuals
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2017
All Homeless
Individuals
Sheltered
Individuals
Unsheltered
Individuals
0% 100%
Major Cities
52.1
48.4
37.6
56.1 32.7
Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
35.3 12.7
14.1
11.1
Continuums of Care (CoC) Were
Divided into Three Geographic
Categories
Major city CoCs (n=48) cover the 50 largest
cities in the United States. In two cases
(Phoenix and Mesa, AZ, and Arlington and
Fort Worth, TX), two large cities were located
in the same CoC.
Smaller city, county, and regional CoCs
(n=306) are jurisdictions that are neither one
of the 50 largest cities in the United States nor
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs.
Balance of State (BoS) and statewide CoCs
(n=40) are typically composed of multiple
rural counties or represent an entire state.
28

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 2.9: CoCs with the Largest Numbers of Homeless Individuals
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Major City CoCs
Los Angeles City & County, CA
Total
Individuals
47,082
CoC
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Santa Ana/Anaheim/Orange
County, CA
Total
Individuals
CoC
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
Total
Individuals
3,527 Texas Balance of State 4,808
New York City, NY 31,124 Honolulu, HI 3,112 Oregon Balance of State 3,902
Seattle/King County, WA
San Diego City and County, CA
San Jose/Santa Clara City &
County, CA
EXHIBIT 2.10: CoCs with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered Homeless Individuals
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Highest Rates
Fresno/Madera
County, CA
Los Angeles City &
County, CA
San Jose/Santa Clara
City & County, CA
Oakland/Alameda
County, CA
San Diego City &
County, CA
Lowest Rates
Omaha/Council
Bluffs, NE
Major City CoCs
Total
Individuals
8,810
7,571
6,319
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs a
%
Unsheltered CoC Total
Individuals
1,742 87.8
Hendry, Hardee,
Highlands Counties,
FL
Inyo, Mono, Alpine
Counties, CA
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
%
Unsheltered CoC Total
Individuals
377 97.6
Hawaii Balance
of State
47,082 84.3 102
Georgia Balance
97.1
of State
6,319 81.5 Lake County, CA 294
Nevada Balance
96.6
of State
4,918 78.0
Ft. Walton Beach/
Okaloosa, Walton
Counties, FL
247 94.3 Oklahoma
Balance of State
7,571 70.4 Imperial County, CA 1,034 94.2
1,037 5.5
Sioux City/
Dakota, Woodbury
Counties, IA
Oregon Balance
of State
159 1.3 Nebraska
Balance of State
Boston, MA 2,492 7.5 Sullivan County, NY 114
Iowa Balance of
1.8
State
Memphis/Shelby
County, TN
915 8.6
Monroe City &
County, MI
122
Maine Balance
2.5
of State
Indianapolis, IN 1,283 9.8 Bergen County, NJ 182 2.7 Delaware
Statewide
New York, NY 31,124 12.6
Somerset County,
NJ
176
Rhode Island
2.8
Statewide
Excludes CoCs with less than 100 total homeless people.
Salinas/Monterey, San Benito
Counties, CA
Santa Rosa/Petaluma/Sonoma
County, CA
St. Petersburg/Clearwater/
Largo/Pinellas County, FL
2,719 Washington Balance of State 2,875
2,509 Colorado Balance of State 2,568
2,466 Indiana Balance of State 2,340
San Francisco, CA 6,257 Riverside City & County, CA 2,172 Georgia Balance of State 2,219
Las Vegas/Clark County, NV
Oakland/Alameda County, CA
Denver, CO
Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa
County, AZ
Ft. Lauderdale/Broward
6,190
County, FL
Watsonville/Santa Cruz City &
4,918
County, CA
San Bernardino City & County,
4,031
CA
Santa Maria/Santa Barbara
3,805
County, CA
2,037 North Carolina Balance of State 1,911
1,846 Ohio Balance of State 1,779
1,432 Connecticut Balance of State 1,778
1,422 Wisconsin Balance of State 1,499
%
Unsheltered
1,423 82.8
2,219 76.8
180 75.0
151 72.2
3,902 65.5
276 5.1
807 6.2
1,352 8.0
615 8.5
802 8.6
29

2
Data
1National Estimates Estimates by CoC
Homeless Individuals
Homelessness in the United States
source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
Changes Over Time
• Between 2016 and 2017 individual homelessness
increased by nine percent (15,540 people) in the
nation’s major cities. This increase was driven by
a 22 percent increase in unsheltered individuals
(17,663 more people). Los Angeles accounted for
half (8,758) of the entire increase in unsheltered
individuals.
• After Los Angeles, New York reported the
second largest increase, with 2,159 more
individuals experiencing homelessness. This
increase was evenly split between people
staying in sheltered and unsheltered locations.
• Smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs
saw a slight decline in the number of people
experiencing homelessness as individuals (1%
or 1,253 fewer people) since 2016. There was a
three percent decline in the number of sheltered
individuals (2,499 fewer people), which offset a
two percent increase (1,246 more people) in the
number of unsheltered individuals.
• In BoS and statewide CoCs, individual
homelessness from 2016 to 2017 remained flat.
• From 2007 to 2017, smaller cities, counties, and
regional CoCs experienced the largest declines
in the number of homeless individuals, with
34,203 fewer people (or 21%). The number of
unsheltered individuals in this CoC category
declined by 27 percent (or 21,334) during the
same time period.
• BoS and statewide CoCs experienced declines
in homeless individuals between 2007 and 2017,
with 13 percent fewer homeless individuals,
nine percent fewer sheltered individuals, and 17
percent fewer unsheltered individuals in 2017
than in 2007.
• The number of homeless individuals in major
cities in 2017 was slightly lower than the number
of homeless individuals in 2007 (1% fewer
people). However, in recent years the number of
homeless individuals, unsheltered individuals
in particular, in major cities has risen sharply.
In 2017 there were only two percent more
unsheltered individuals in major cities than there
were in 2007 but 47 percent more than there
were in 2014, the year after which the number
began to rise.
Between 2016 and 2017, individual
homelessness increased by nine
percent (15,540 people) in the
nation’s major cities. Los Angeles
accounted for 60% of this increase.
30

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 2.11: Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
120000
Major Cities,
Sheltered
100000
80000
60000
101,432
96,989
92,943 92,602
95,148
85,071 83,568 83,583
80,524
77,091
74,522
77,949
70,731
75,413
73,696
66,338
97,118
78,848
73,420
56,927
97,038
93,039
72,202
56,615
Major Cities,
Unsheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Sheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Unsheltered
40000
20000
29,760
23,078
29,775
24,587
28,404
27,104
28,828 28,542
27,013
24,941
19,024 19,241
Balance of State and
Statewide CoCs,
Sheltered
Balance of State and
Statewide CoCs,
Unsheltered
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EXHIBIT 2.12: Change in Numbers of Homeless Individuals
By Sheltered Status and CoC Category, 2016–2017
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
Major Cities 15,540 8.9 -2,123 -2.2 17,663 22.3
Smaller City, County, and Regional
CoCs
-1,253 -1.0 -2,499 -3.3 1,246 2.3
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs -17 0.0 -159 -0.6 142 0.7
31

3National 1National Estimates
Homelessness Families in the with United Children States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 3.1: PIT Estimates of Homeless
People in Families with Children
By Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
234,558
238,096 236,175
222,190
241,937
235,259
239,397
206,286
191,325 190,996 216,261 194,716
184,661
181,506
191,571 191,903
178,328
187,313
186,482
185,824175,563167,723
78,535 75,750
78,514 79,442 77,184 77,155
70,957 67,613 64,197 61,265 57,971
56,230 53,753 50,783 50,612 49,693 48,401
30,619
20,462 19,153 16,938
24,358
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Persons in Families
Family Households
Sheltered Persons in Families
Unsheltered Persons in Families
On a Single Night in January 2017
• 184,661 people were homeless in 57,971
families with children, representing one-third
250000
(33%) of the total homeless population in 2017.
• More than 90 percent of homeless people in
200000
families with children were sheltered (167,723
people). There were 16,938 people in families
150000 with children who were counted in unsheltered
locations.
100000 • On average, a homeless family household
consisted of three people.
50000
Demographic Characteristics
• Children under the age of 18 made up 59
percent of people experiencing homelessness
in families. Most of the adults were 25 years of
age or older.
• Children were especially likely to be sheltered
rather than unsheltered, with only eight
percent of children found in unsheltered
locations.
• The racial composition of people in families
with children varied by whether they were
sheltered or unsheltered. More than half of
sheltered people in families with children
were African American (53%), while African
Americans represented just 21 percent of the
unsheltered population. About a third (35%)
of sheltered people in families with children
were white, while people identifying as white
accounted for 59 percent of the unsheltered
population.
• More than 25 percent of people experiencing
homelessness in families with children were
Hispanic or Latino (27%), and this was higher
than the Hispanic share of people experiencing
homelessness as individuals (18%). Hispanics
comprised a slightly larger share of sheltered
people in families (28%) and a smaller share of
those in unsheltered locations (22%).
0
EXHIBIT 3.2: Parenting Youth
By Sheltered Status, 2017
People in Parenting Youth
Families
Sheltered People in
Parenting Youth Families
Unsheltered People in
Parenting Youth Families
# % # % # %
Total Parents under 25 9,436 100 8,859 100 577 100
Parenting Youth (Under 18) 96 1.0 83 0.9 13 2.3
Parenting Youth Age (18 to 24) 9,340 99.0 8,776 99.1 564 97.7
Children of Parenting Youth 12,152 11,433 719
32

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 3.3: Demographic Characteristics of Homeless People in Families with Children
2017
Characteristic
People in Families with
Children
Age
All Homeless People in Families Sheltered People in Families Unsheltered People in Families
# % # % # %
184,661 100 167,723 100 16,938 100
Under 18 109,719 59.4 100,960 60.2 8,759 51.7
18 – 24 15,408 8.3 13,851 8.3 1,557 9.2
Over 24 59,534 32.2 52,912 31.5 6,622 39.1
Gender
Female 111,394 60.3 102,589 61.2 8,805 52.0
Male 73,027 39.5 64,971 38.7 8,056 47.6
Transgender 85 0.0 70 0.0 15 0.1
Don’t identify as male,
female, or transgender
Ethnicity
155 0.1 93 0.1 62 0.4
Non-Hispanic 134,363 72.8 121,175 72.2 13,188 77.9
Hispanic 50,298 27.2 46,548 27.8 3,750 22.1
Race
White 68,308 37.0 58,266 34.7 10,042 59.3
African American 92,538 50.1 88,934 53.0 3,604 21.3
Asian 1,919 1.0 1,695 1.0 224 1.3
Native American 4,548 2.5 3,939 2.3 609 3.6
Pacific Islander 4,302 2.3 2,954 1.8 1,348 8.0
Multiple Races 13,046 7.1 11,935 7.1 1,111 6.6
EXHIBIT 3.4: Change in Number of Homeless People in Families with Children
By Sheltered Status, 2007-2017
Change 2016-2017 Change 2010-2017 Change 2007-2017
# % # % # %
Persons in families -10,055 -5.2 -57,276 -23.7 -49,897 -21.3
Sheltered -7,840 -4.5 -23,602 -12.3 -10,605 -5.9
Unsheltered -2,215 -11.6 -33,674 -66.5 -39,292 -69.9
Family households -3,294 -5.4 -21,471 -27.0 -20,564 -26.2
EXHIBIT 3.5: Change in Numbers of Homeless People in Families with Children
By Age and Sheltered Status, 2016–2017
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
Under 18 -6,987 -6.0 -5,451 -5.1 -1,536 -14.9
18 to 24 -742 -4.6 -1,059 -7.1 317 25.6
Over 24 -2,326 -3.8 -1,330 -2.5 -996 -13.1
33

3National 1National Estimates
Homelessness Families in the with United Children States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
Additional Characteristics
• Only five percent of homeless people in families
with children were in households with chronic
patterns of homelessness (8,457 people). Those
with chronic patterns of homelessness were
more likely to be unsheltered than people in
homeless families overall, with three in ten
(29% or 2,477 people) currently staying in
unsheltered locations.
• Approximately 17 percent of people in families
who were under the age of 25 were people in
parenting youth households. Nearly all of these
parents (99%) were between 18 and 24 years of
age. 2
• Only six percent of people in families with a
parent under 25 were found in unsheltered
locations.
Since 2016
• The number of homeless people in families with
children counted on a single night declined by
five percent (or 10,055 people) between 2016
and 2017, as did the number of homeless family
households (3,294 households).
• Declines occurred among both sheltered people
in families with children (by 5% or 7,840 people)
and unsheltered people in families with children
(by 12% or 2,215 people).
• Between 2016 and 2017, family homelessness
declined across all age groups, and the number
of family members found in unsheltered
locations declined for most, but not all, age
groups. The number of children experiencing
unsheltered homelessness with their parents
declined by 15 percent. The only age group
to experience an increase in unsheltered
homelessness was people between the ages 18
and 24, an increase of 317 people or 26 percent.
People in this age group may be the parent of
the family, or they may be young adults in a
household that has both another adult and at
least one child under 18.
• Between 2016 and 2017, the number of
people in families with children experiencing
homelessness who identified as Hispanic or
Latino declined by 17 percent, or 10,469 fewer
people, including an eight percent decline in
unsheltered homelessness. While sheltered
homelessness among Hispanics dropped, it
increased for non-Hispanic or Latino people in
families over the same time period (by 2% or
2,300 people).
• Homelessness increased among people in
families who identified as African American (by
3%), while declining among people in families
with children who identified as white (by 10%).
Since 2007
• Over the last 10 years, the number of homeless
people in families dropped by 21 percent (49,897
fewer people), and the number of homeless
family households dropped by 26 percent
(20,564 family households).
• This decline was driven by a substantial drop
in the number of people counted in families
with children staying in unsheltered locations.
Between 2007 and 2017, the number of
unsheltered people in families with children
declined by 70 percent (or 39,292 people). The
number of people in families with children
staying in sheltered locations also declined,
though by a more modest margin (by 6% or
10,605 people).
2 96 people under the age of 18 and their children are included in
this estimate. People under the age of 18 who are experiencing
homelessness with their children are reported under “childonly”
households, and are also included in the individuals
section of this report. They are not included in the total number
of people experiencing homelessness in families.
34

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
35

3National 1National Estimates
Homelessness Families in the with United Children States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 3.6: Estimates of Family Homelessness
By State, 2017
WA
6,331
OR
3,519
NV
552
CA
21,522
AK
491
ID
728
UT
970
AZ
2,459
MT
542
WY
251
CO
3,369
NM
617
ME, 928
ND
VT, 528
257 MN
NH, 680
3,769
NY MA, 11,298
SD
WI
332
2,382 MI
52,113 RI, 378
3,423
CT, 1,180
IA
PA
NE
5,867 NJ, 3,103
1,256 IL OH
803
3,904 IN 3,407
DE, 379
1,815 WV MD, 2,170
277
VA
KS MO
KY 2,039
DC, 3,890
864 2,269 993
Share of Homeless
NC, 2,918
People in Families
OK
TN, 2,172
1,375
AR
SC
Less than 1%
399 AL 1,020
1%–2.9%
MS 808 GA
TX
372 2,752
3%–6%
LA
Greater than 6%
6,840
746
FL
9,422
HI
2,685
On a Single Night in 2017
• Nearly 30 percent of all people in families with
children experiencing homelessness were in
New York, or 52,113 people. All but 55 people
(or 0.1%) were staying in sheltered locations.
• More than half of all homeless people in
families with children were in four states: New
York (29% or 52,113 people), California (12% or
21,522 people), Massachusetts (6% or 11,298
people), and Florida (5% or 9,422 people).
• California, Florida, Oregon, and Colorado
together accounted for nearly two-thirds of all
unsheltered people in families with children
(63%).
• In five states, more than one third of people
experiencing homelessness in families with
children were unsheltered: North Dakota
(58%), Oregon (52%), Wyoming (49%), Montana
(35%), and Florida (34%). These rates were
considerably higher than the national rate of
just under 10 percent.
Changes Over Time
• Between 2016 and 2017, 13 states had
increases in the number of people in families
with children experiencing homelessness.
The largest increases were in New York and
California, each which had more than 1,000
more homeless people in families in 2017 than
in 2016.
• Thirty-seven states and the District of
Columbia experienced declines between 2016
and 2017. Massachusetts experienced the
largest decline in homeless people in families,
with 1,876 fewer people in 2017, a 14 percent
decline. Other states with large declines in
homeless people in families with children
were Georgia (892 fewer people or 25%),
Pennsylvania (873 fewer people or 13%), and
the District of Columbia (777 fewer people or
17%).
• Over a longer period, 2007-2017, the number of
people experiencing homelessness in families
with children increased in 13 states. New York
experienced the largest increase, with 17,568
36

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
more homeless people in families, a 51 percent
rise. Though Massachusetts and the District
of Columbia experienced declines in the last
year, the number of homeless people in families
in both states were considerably higher in
2017 than in 2007 (by 4,463 people or 65% in
Massachusetts and 2,287 people or 143% in the
District of Columbia).
• In the last 10 years, the number of homeless
people in families with children declined in
38 states. Though California experienced an
increase between 2016 and 2017, the number
of people in families with children was
considerably lower in 2017 than it was in 2007
(by 6,512 people or 23%). Other states with
large declines over the last decade include
Texas (6,642 or 49%), Florida (5,607 or 37%),
and New Jersey (5,239 or 63%).
EXHIBIT 3.7: Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered People in Families with Children
By State, 2017
Highest Rates
NORTH DAKOTA
OREGON
WYOMING
MONTANA
FLORIDA
58.0%
51.9%
49.4%
35.1%
34.4%
257 Homeless
149 Unsheltered
3,519 Homeless
1,826 Unsheltered
251 Homeless
124 Unsheltered
542 Homeless
190 Unsheltered
9,422 Homeless
3,242 Unsheltered
Lowest Rates
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
0.0%
IOWA
0.0%
UTAH
0.0%
NEBRASKA
0.0%
ALASKA
0.0%
3,090 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
1,256 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
970 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
803 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
491 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
Note: Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories.
37

3State 1National Estimates
Homelessness Families in the with United Children States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 3.8: Largest Changes in Homeless People in Families with Children
By State, 2007–2017
Largest Increases
2016–2017 2007–2017
NEW YORK 1,076 / 2.1% NEW YORK 17,568 / 50.9%
CALIFORNIA 1,040 / 5.1% MASSACHUSETTS 4,463 / 65.3%
OKLAHOMA 265 / 23.9% DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2,287 / 142.7%
NEW HAMPSHIRE 141 / 26.2% OKLAHOMA 136 / 11.0%
MINNESOTA 97 / 2.6% MISSISSIPPI 110 / 42.0%
Largest Decreases*
MASSACHUSETTS -1,876 / -14.2% TEXAS -6,642 / -49.3%
GEORGIA -892 / -24.5% CALIFORNIA -6,512 / -23.2%
PENNSYLVANIA -873 / -13.0% FLORIDA -5,607 / -37.3%
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -777 / -16.6% NEW JERSEY -5,239 / -62.8%
COLORADO -731 / -17.8% GEORGIA -4,366 / -61.3%
a
Due to methodological changes, Michigan was excluded from the list of largest decreases from 2007-2017.
Approximately 17 percent of people
in families who were under the age
of 25 were people in parenting
youth households
38

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
39

3Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homelessness Families in the with United Children States
f All Homeless People in Families with Children
re of Sheltered People in Families with Children
of Unsheltered People in Families with Children
EXHIBIT 3.9: Homeless People in Families
with Children
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2017
0 100
All Homeless People in
Families with Children
Sheltered People in
Families with Children
Unsheltered People in
Families with Children
0% 100%
50.5
53.6
17.1 50.2
Major Cities
Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
34.0 15.5
32.5
13.9
32.7
On a Single Night in January 2017
• More than half of all people experiencing
homelessness in families with children were
in the 50 largest cities (92,414 people). Smaller
cities, counties and regional CoCs had 34
percent of the total, and the remaining 16
percent were in BoS and statewide CoCs.
• New York City accounted for one quarter all
family homelessness in the U.S., or 45,377
people experiencing homelessness in families
with children. While this is not surprising
given the size of New York City, some large
cities have relatively low numbers of people
in homeless families compared to the size of
the city. For example, Houston has the fourth
largest population in the country but is not
among the ten cities with the largest numbers
of people experiencing homelessness in
families with children.
• Six of the ten major cities with the largest
numbers of homeless people in families are not
among those with largest numbers of homeless
individuals. Chicago and Phoenix, the third
and fifth largest cities, were in the ten places
with the largest numbers of homeless families
though they did not appear among the largest
total homeless populations.
• In major cities, almost all homeless people
in families with children were sheltered, 97
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
Smaller Cities, Counties, and Regional CoCs
Major Cities
percent. By comparison, only 87 percent of
people in homeless families were sheltered in
smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs and
82 percent in BoS and statewide CoCs.
• Smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs
include eight CoCs where over 80 percent
of homeless people in families with children
were unsheltered. The highest unsheltered
rate was found in Pasco County on the west
coast of Florida, where 96 percent of homeless
people with families were living in unsheltered
locations.
• BoS or Statewide CoCs accounted for 16
percent of all people in families with children
experiencing homelessness (or 28,408 people)
and for 33 percent of all unsheltered people in
families (5,145 people).
• The communities with the highest rates of
unsheltered homelessness among families
in major cities and smaller cities, counties,
and regional CoCs were, for the most part, in
warmer climates like California and Florida.
However, the highest rates of unsheltered
family homelessness for BoS or statewide
CoCs were found in colder climates, with the
exception of Oklahoma Balance of State.
Continuums of Care (CoC) Were
Divided into Three Geographic
Categories
Major city CoCs (n=48) cover the 50 largest
cities in the United States. In two cases
(Phoenix and Mesa, AZ, and Arlington and
Fort Worth, TX), two large cities were located
in the same CoC.
Smaller city, county, and regional CoCs
(n=306) are jurisdictions that are neither one
of the 50 largest cities in the United States nor
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs.
Balance of State (BoS) and statewide CoCs
(n=40) are typically composed of multiple
rural counties or represent an entire state.
40

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 3.10: CoCs with the Largest Numbers of Homeless People in Families with Children
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Major City CoCs Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
# of People
in Families
New York City, NY 45,377
Los Angeles City & County,
CA
CoC
Nassau, Suffolk Counties/
Babylon/Islip/ Huntington, NY
# of People
in Families
CoC
2,943 Texas Balance of State
8,106 Springfield, MA 1,941 Oregon Balance of State
# of People
in Families
District of Columbia 3,890 Honolulu, HI 1,847 Wisconsin Balance of State 1,849
Boston, MA 3,643 Pasco County, FL 1,755 Washington Balance of State 1,796
Seattle/King County, WA 2,833
Philadelphia, PA 2,352
Chicago, IL 1,933
Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa
County Regional, AZ
Minneapolis/Hennepin
County, MN
San Diego City and County,
CA
Santa Ana/Anaheim/Orange
County, CA
Yonkers/Mount Vernon/New
Rochelle/Westchester, NY
Fort Pierce/St. Lucie, Indian
River, Martin Counties, FL
1,265
Massachusetts Balance of
State
1,163 Ohio Balance of State
982 Georgia Balance of State
1,800 Eastern Pennsylvania 961 Colorado Balance of State
1,662 Worcester City & County, MA 923 Indiana Balance of State
1,589 Newark/Essex County, NJ 795
North Carolina Balance of
State
2,345
1,893
1,564
1,530
1,497
1,451
1,315
1,143
Nearly 30 percent of all people in
families with children experiencing
homelessness were in New York.
41

3Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homelessness Families in the with United Children States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 3.11: CoCs with the Highest and Lowest
Rates of Unsheltered Homeless People in Families with Children
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Highest Rates
San Jose/Santa
Clara City &
County, CA
Major City CoCs
Total
Homeless
People in
Families
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Homeless
People in
Families
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Homeless
People in
Families
1,075 27.5% Pasco County, FL 1,755 96.3% Oklahoma
Balance of State
Long Beach, CA 217 26.3% El Dorado County,
CA
Los Angeles City &
County, CA
San Diego City and
County, CA
Portland-Gresham-
Multnomah
County, OR
Lowest Rates
8,106 18.6% Fort Pierce/St. Lucie,
Indian River, Martin
Counties, FL
1,589 18.4% Northwest North
Carolina
156 88.5% Oregon Balance
of State
982 88.0% Colorado
Balance of State
267 85.4% North Dakota
Statewide
657 11.7% Central Oregon 284 83.8% Wyoming
Statewide
New York City CoC 45,377 0.0% Nassau, Suffolk
Counties/Babylon/
Islip/ Huntington, NY
District of
Columbia CoC
2,943 0.0% Massachusetts
Balance of State
3,890 0.0% Springfield, MA 1,941 0.0% Iowa Balance of
State
Boston CoC, MA 3,643 0.0% Yonkers/
Mount Vernon/
New Rochelle/
Westchester, NY
Miami/Dade
County CoC, FL
Memphis/Shelby
County CoC, TN
1,175 0.0% Quincy/Brockton/
Weymouth/Plymouth
City and County, MA
511 0.0% Salt Lake City &
County, UT
Note: Excludes CoCs with fewer than 100 total homeless people.
1,163 0.0% Kansas Balance
of State
750 0.0% Rhode Island
Statewide
699 0.0% Nebraska
Balance of State
%
Unsheltered
281 65.5%
1,893 64.1%
1,451 62.6%
257 58.0%
251 49.4%
1,564 0.0%
985 0.0%
429 0.0%
378 0.0%
230 0.0%
Changes over Time
• Between 2016 and 2017, the number of
homeless people in families with children
declined in all three types of CoCs. The
largest percentage change occurred in BoS or
statewide CoCs (by 3,291 or 10%), followed by
smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs (by
5,133 people or 8%), with more modest declines
in major cities (1,618 or 2%).
• New York City and Los Angeles have
experienced considerable fluctuations in
the number of homeless people in families
in recent years. These two communities
experienced the largest increases between
2014 and 2015, the largest declines in people
experiencing homelessness in families with
children between 2015 and 2016, and between
2016 and 2017 represented two of the top
three increases. Los Angeles had the largest
42

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
increase between 2016 and 2017, with 1,978
more people (or 32%). In New York, there were
819 more people in families experiencing
homelessness, a two percent increase.
• Over a longer time period, 2007-2017, sheltered
homelessness among people in families in
major cities increased by 14 percent (10,798
people). Sheltered homelessness declined in
smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs (by
23%) and in BoS and statewide CoCs (by 20%)
during the same time period.
• Over the last decade, unsheltered
homelessness declined dramatically across
CoC categories. Homelessness among people
in families in major cities declined by 82
percent (12,182 fewer people), 69 percent in
smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs (or
17,470 people), and by 67 percent in BoS and
statewides (or 10,231 people).
EXHIBIT 3.12: People in Families with Children Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
91,487
93,033
89,720
84,825
82,441
78,922
70,220
72,001 71,708
70,123
64,933
54,432
32,508
28,896
29,461 29,485
27,373
23,263
28,067 22,861
25,380
17,669
15,376
19,794
17,727
14,876
8,801
7,176
7,910
6,411
5,145
4,274 5,424 4,579 4,143 2,694
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Major Cities,
Sheltered
Major Cities,
Unsheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Sheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Unsheltered
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs,
Sheltered
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs,
Unsheltered
EXHIBIT 3.13: Change in Numbers of Homeless People in Families with Children
By Sheltered Status and CoC Category, 2016-2017
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
100000
Major Cities -1,618 -1.7 -1,094 -1.2 -524 -16.3
Smaller Cities, Counties, and Regional CoCs -5,133 -7.6 -5,040 -8.5 -93 -1.2
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs -3,291 -10.4 -1,465 -5.9 -1,826 -26.2
80000
60000
43

4National 1National Estimates
Homelessness Unaccompanied in the Homeless United Youth States
Data source: PIT 2017
In recent years, HUD has expanded Point-in-Time
(PIT) count data collection to include information
on the number of young adults and children
who are experiencing homelessness without
a parent or guardian present. Unaccompanied
youth are people under the age of 25 who are not
accompanied by a parent or guardian and are
not a parent presenting with or sleeping in the
same place as his or her children. These estimates
include both unaccompanied homeless youth
who are under the age of 18, and are a part of the
households with only children population and
unaccompanied homeless youth between the ages
of 18 and 24, who are a part of the households
without children population. HUD and its federal
partners selected the PIT counts from January 2017
as the baseline measure of homelessness among
unaccompanied youth. The baseline measure will
be used to assess future trends in the number of
unaccompanied youth experiencing homelessness
in the United States.
EXHIBIT 4.1: Estimates of Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
By Age and Sheltered Status, 2017
Total
Sheltered Unsheltered
All Homeless People
Unaccompanied Unaccompanied Unaccompanied
Unsheltered
Homeless Youth Youth
Youth
Sheltered
# % # % # %
All Homeless Individuals
All Unaccompanied 40,799 100.0% 18,542 100.0% 22,257 100.0%
Unaccompanied Youth Homeless (18-24) Youth
(under 25)
naccompanied Youth (under Unaccompanied
18)
4,789 11.7% 2,122 11.4% 2,667 12.0%
Homeless Youth
(under 18) 0 100
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
(18-24)
36,010 88.3% 16,420 88.6% 19,590 88.0%
EXHIBIT 4.2: Sheltered and Unsheltered
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth
By Sheltered Status, 2017
All Homeless
People
All Homeless
Individuals
Unaccompanied
Youth (18-24)
Unaccompanied
Youth (under 18)
0% 100%
52.3
65.2
34.8
47.7
45.6 54.4
44.3 55.7
On a Single Night in January
• There were 40,799 unaccompanied homeless
youth under the age of 25. This represents
just over seven percent of the total homeless
population and eleven percent of people
experiencing homelessness as individuals.
• In addition, there were 9,436 parents and
12,152 children in families in which the parent
was a youth. They are not included in this
chapter, but are described in the Families
chapter of this report.
• People between the ages of 18 and 24
account for most of the unaccompanied
homeless youth population (88% or 36,010
people). The remaining 12 percent (or 4,789
people) were under the age of 18.
• Unaccompanied homeless youth are much more
likely to be unsheltered (55%) than all people
experiencing homelessness (35%) or people
experiencing homelessness as individuals
(48%). The younger unaccompanied homeless
youth—people under age 18—are a slightly
more likely to be unsheltered (56%) than
unaccompanied homeless youth
age 18 to 24 (54%).
Demographic Characteristics of
Unaccompanied Youth
• The majority of unaccompanied
homeless youth experiencing
homelessness were men or boys
(62% or 25,131 people). The size of the
majority varied by sheltered status.
More than two thirds of unsheltered
unaccompanied homeless youth were
male (67% or 14,929 people) compared to
55 percent of sheltered unaccompanied
homeless youth.
• Transgender youth accounted for
approximately two percent of the
unaccompanied homeless youth population,
regardless of sheltered status. While
accounting for an extremely small share of
44
Sheltered
Unsheltered

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
the overall unaccompanied homeless youth
population, people who did not identify as
male, female, or transgender comprised a
higher share of the unsheltered population
than the sheltered population (0.5% compared
to 0.2%).
• More than one-third (37%) of unaccompanied
homeless youth are women or girls, which
is a larger share than those experiencing
homelessness as individuals (28%).
• One-quarter of unaccompanied homeless
youth were Hispanic or Latino (or 10,296
people). The rate is higher among unsheltered
unaccompanied homeless youth (31% or 6,785
people). Unaccompanied homeless youth
were more likely to be Hispanic or Latino
than all homeless individuals (25% of youth
were Hispanic or Latino compared to 19%),
demonstrating that younger individuals were
more likely Hispanic than older individuals.
• Nearly half of unaccompanied homeless youth
were white (49%), and about one-third (34%)
were African American. Multiracial youth
accounted for 10 percent. Native American
youth represented four percent of the homeless
youth population, and Asian and Pacific
Islander youth together accounted for the
remaining three percent.
• Compared to all homeless individuals
(including people over the age of 24),
unaccompanied homeless youth were more
likely to identify as a race other than white or
African American (18% versus 12%).
EXHIBIT 4.3: Demographic Characteristics of Unaccompanied Youth Experiencing
Homelessness
2017
All Unaccompanied Youth
Sheltered Unaccompanied
Youth
Unsheltered Unaccompanied
Youth
# % # % # %
Total 40,799 100 18,542 100 22,257 100
Age
Under 18 4,789 11.7 2,122 11.4 2,667 12.0
18 – 24 36,010 88.3 16,420 88.6 19,590 88.0
Gender
Female 14,930 36.6 8,036 43.3 6,894 31.0
Male 25,131 61.6 10,202 55.0 14,929 67.1
Transgender 597 1.5 270 1.5 327 1.5
Does Not Identify as Male,
Female, or Transgender
Ethnicity
141 0.3 34 0.2 107 0.5
Non-Hispanic 30,503 74.8 15,031 81.1 15,472 69.5
Hispanic 10,296 25.2 3,511 18.9 6,785 30.5
Race
White 19,842 48.6 8,629 46.5 11,213 50.4
African American 13,817 33.9 7,830 42.2 5,987 26.9
Asian 770 1.9 193 1.0 577 2.6
Native American 1,724 4.2 621 3.3 1,103 5.0
Pacific Islander 579 1.4 135 0.7 444 2.0
Multiple Races 4,067 10.0 1,134 6.1 2,933 13.2
45

4State 1National Estimates
Homelessness Unaccompanied in the Homeless United Youth States
Data source: PIT 2017; Excludes PR and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 4.4: Estimates of Unaccompanied Homeless Youth
By State, 2017
WA
2,135
OR
1,462
NV
2,166
CA
15,458
AK
162
ID
113
UT
180
AZ
578
MT
106
WY
62
CO
763
NM
181
ND
80
SD
66
NE
164
KS
103
TX
1,318
OK
363
ME, 178
VT, 94
MN
NH, 76
889
WI
NY MA, 469
276 MI
2,829 RI, 49
608
CT, 170
IA
PA
NJ,
140 IL OH 756 492
IN
DE, 45
730
294 695 WV MD, 272
VA
MO
KY 79
303
DC, 228
548
253
NC, 434
TN, 457
AR
SC
208
173
Share of Unaccompanied
MS AL GA
Homeless Youth
59 294 526
Less than 1%
LA
236
1%–2.9%
3%–6%
FL 2,019
Greater than 6%
HI
319
On a Single Night in January 2017
• California reported the largest numbers
of unaccompanied homeless youth (15,458
people), which represents 38 percent of the
national total. Other states with large numbers
of unaccompanied homeless youth were:
New York (2,829), Nevada (1,931), Washington
(2,135), and Florida (2,019).
Unaccompanied homeless youth are
much more likely to be unsheltered
(55%) than all people experiencing
homelessness (35%) or people
experiencing homelessness as
individuals (48%).
• California accounted for 58 percent of all
unsheltered unaccompanied youth (12,749
people). The state with the next largest
number was Nevada, with 90 percent of
unaccompanied homeless people under 25 in
unsheltered situations, or 1,931 people.
• Nevada had the highest rate of unsheltered
unaccompanied youth, with 89 percent (or
1,931 people) staying in places not meant
for human habitation. California and Hawaii
followed, with 82 percent of unaccompanied
youth in those states staying in unsheltered
locations.
• Iowa had the lowest rate of unsheltered
unaccompanied youth, with only four of the 140
youth staying in unsheltered locations (3%).
46

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 4.5: States with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth
By State, 2017
Highest Rates
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
89.2%
82.5%
82.4%
65.7%
65.3%
2,166 Homeless
1,931 Unsheltered
15,458 Homeless
12,749 Unsheltered
319 Homeless
263 Unsheltered
2,135 Homeless
1,402 Unsheltered
1,462 Homeless
955 Unsheltered
Lowest Rates
IOWA
DELAWARE
NEBRASKA
NEW YORK
MICHIGAN
2.9%
4.4%
7.9%
10.4%
11.3%
140 Homeless
4 Unsheltered
45 Homeless
2 Unsheltered
164 Homeless
13 Unsheltered
2,829 Homeless
294 Unsheltered
608 Homeless
69 Unsheltered
47

4Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homelessness Unaccompanied in the Homeless United Youth States
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
Smaller Cities, Counties, and Regional CoCs
Major Cities
Data source: PIT 2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
0 100
EXHIBIT 4.6: Unaccompanied Youth
Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2017
All Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
Sheltered
Unaccompanied
Youth
Unsheltered
Unaccompanied
Youth
0% 100%
Major Cities
43.4
54.9
33.0 12.1
41.3
64.4 26.1
Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
15.3
On a Single Night in January 2017
• More than half (55%) of all unaccompanied
homeless youth were counted in the nation’s
major cities. Major cities accounted for a much
larger share of the unsheltered population
(64%) than the sheltered population (43%).
• Smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs
had one-third of all unaccompanied homeless
youth. These CoCs accounted for a smaller
share of unsheltered youth (26%) than of
sheltered youth (41%).
• BoS and statewide CoCs account for 12
percent of all unaccompanied homeless youth,
nine percent of unsheltered youth and 15
percent of sheltered youth.
• Five major cities (Los Angeles, San Jose, Las
Vegas, New York City, and Seattle) accounted
for one-third of all unaccompanied homeless
youth in the country. Los Angeles had the
largest number (5,163 or 13%), followed by San
Jose (2,530 or 6%).
• Los Angeles had the largest number of
unaccompanied homeless youth, more than
double the number in the next largest city, San
Jose. When Los Angeles is removed from the
major cities category, major cities account for
only 27 percent of sheltered unaccompanied
youth, and smaller cities, counties and regional
9.4
CoCs account for 53 percent. Removing
Los Angeles has only a slight effect on the
percentage of unsheltered unaccompanied
youth located in major cities (64% with Los
Angeles, 62% without Los Angeles).
• Major cities account for a higher percentage of
unsheltered unaccompanied youth than they
do all unsheltered individuals (64% compared
to 56%) and a lower percentage of sheltered
unaccompanied youth compared to sheltered
individuals (43% compared to 48%).
• In four major cities, more than 80 percent of
unaccompanied youth were unsheltered. The
highest rate was in San Jose, where 96 percent
of unaccompanied youth were unsheltered. In
Las Vegas, 93 percent of unaccompanied youth
were unsheltered, in San Francisco, 88 percent,
and in Los Angeles, 80 percent were staying in
unsheltered locations.
Continuums of Care (CoC) Were
Divided into Three Geographic
Categories
Major city CoCs (n=48) cover the 50 largest
cities in the United States. In two cases
(Phoenix and Mesa, AZ, and Arlington and
Fort Worth, TX), two large cities were located
in the same CoC.
Smaller city, county, and regional CoCs
(n=306) are jurisdictions that are neither one
of the 50 largest cities in the United States nor
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs.
Balance of State (BoS) and statewide CoCs
(n=40) are typically composed of multiple
rural counties or represent an entire state.
48

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
• Among smaller cities, counties, and regional
CoCs, seven of the ten CoCs with the largest
numbers of unaccompanied homeless youth
experiencing homelessness were located in
California. The CoC covering Monterey and
San Benito Counties had the largest number
(627).
• Eleven smaller cities, counties, and regional
CoCs had rates of unsheltered unaccompanied
youth above 90 percent. The highest rates
were found in Santa Cruz, where 98 percent of
unaccompanied homeless youth were staying
in places not meant for human habitation,
and Pasco County, Florida, which had an
unsheltered rate of 96 percent.
• Of BoS and statewide CoCs, Hawaii BoS had
the highest rate of unsheltered unaccompanied
youth (95%), followed by Oregon BoS (77%).
EXHIBIT 4.7: CoCs with the Largest Numbers of
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth
By CoC Category, 2017
Major City CoCs
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Balance of State
or Statewide CoCs
CoC
Total
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
CoC
Total
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
CoC
Total
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
Los Angeles City &
County, CA
San Jose/Santa Clara City
& County, CA
Las Vegas/Clark County,
NV
5,163 Salinas/Monterey, San
Benito Counties, CA
2,530 Watsonville/Santa Cruz
City & County, CA
2,052 Santa Rosa/Petaluma/
Sonoma County, CA
627 Oregon Balance of State 847
586 Texas Balance of State 417
532 Washington Balance of
State
New York City, NY 2,003 Pasco County, FL 329 Colorado Balance of State 240
Seattle/King County, WA 1,498 Riverside City & County,
CA
314
257 Indiana Balance of State 221
San Francisco, CA 1,274 Vallejo/Solano County, CA 210 Ohio Balance of State 201
San Diego City and
County, CA
Oakland/Alameda County,
CA
Metropolitan Denver
Homeless Initiative, CO
Phoenix/Mesa/Maricopa
County Regional, AZ
1,160 Honolulu, HI 210 Maine Balance of State 178
991 San Luis Obispo County,
CA
436 San Bernardino City &
County, CA
196 Georgia Balance of State 177
166 Wisconsin Balance of
State
320 St. Louis County, MO 155 Kentucky Balance of State 135
142
49

4Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homelessness Unaccompanied in the Homeless United Youth States
Data source: PIT 2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 4.8: CoCs with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unaccompanied Homeless Youth
Who are Unsheltered
By CoC Category, 2017
Major City CoCs
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
CoC
Total
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
%
Unsheltered
Highest Rates
San Jose/Santa
Clara City &
County, CA
Las Vegas/Clark
County, NV
2,530 96.3
San Francisco, CA 1,274 88.2
Los Angeles City &
County, CA
Seattle/King
County, WA
Lowest Rates
Watsonville/
Santa Cruz City &
County, CA
586 97.8
2,052 92.6 Pasco County, FL 329 96.4
5,163 80.4
1,498 76.2
Detroit, MI 134 3.0
Boston, MA 190 3.7
Kansas City,
Independence,
Lee’s Summit/
Jackson,
Wyandotte
Counties, MO
& KS
Minneapolis/
Hennepin County,
MN
Atlanta Continuum
of Care, GA
124 6.5
243 8.6
Excludes CoCs with fewer than 100 unaccompanied youth.
San Luis Obispo
County, CA
Salinas/Monterey,
San Benito
Counties, CA
Santa Rosa/
Petaluma/
Sonoma County,
CA
Nassau, Suffolk
Counties/
Babylon/Islip/
Huntington, NY
Rochester/
Southeast
Minnesota, MN
Rochester/
Irondequoit/
Greece/Monroe
County, NY
St. Louis County,
MO
196 95.4
627 93.9
532 90.8
118 2.5
133 5.3
112 6.3
155 7.7
199 9.0 Anchorage, AK 115 12.2
Hawaii
Balance of
State
Oregon
Balance of
State
Colorado
Balance of
State
Georgia
Balance of
State
Texas
Balance of
State
Wisconsin
Balance of
State
Indiana
Balance of
State
Maine
Balance of
State
Michigan
Balance of
State
Ohio
Balance of
State
109 94.5
847 76.5
240 68.8
177 59.3
417 58.8
142 3.5
221 14.5
178 19.7
135 21.5
201 21.9
50

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
51

5National 1National Estimates
Homeless Veterans
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2009–2017
EXHIBIT 5.1: PIT Estimates of
Homeless Veterans
By Sheltered Status, 2009–2017
73,367 74,087
43,409 43,437
65,455
40,033
60,579
55,619
49,689
29,958 30,650
25,422 25,436
35,143 34,909
32,119
47,725
39,471
40,056
households without children who were white
(52%). One-third of veterans experiencing
homelessness were African American, and five
percent were multiracial.
• Veterans experiencing homelessness were
nearly half as likely to be Hispanic as
individuals experiencing homelessness (10%
compared to 19%) and less than half as likely
as all people experiencing homelessness (10%
compared to 22%).
20,710
17,570
31,505
16,220
26,404
13,067
24,690
15,366
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Homeless Veterans
Sheltered Veterans
Unsheltered Veterans
On a Single Night in January 2017
• 40,056 veterans were experiencing
homelessness in the U.S., just over nine percent
80000
of all homeless adults.
70000 • Three in five homeless veterans (62% or 24,690
veterans) were staying in emergency shelters
60000 or transitional housing programs, while two
50000 in five (38% or 15,366 veterans) were found in
places not suitable for human habitation.
40000 • Almost all veterans were experiencing
30000
homelessness in households without children
(98% or 39,101 veterans). About two percent
20000 (955) were veterans who were homeless as
part of a family.
10000
Demographic Characteristics
• Nine in ten veterans experiencing
homelessness were men (91% or 36,302
veterans).
• Nearly six in ten veterans experiencing
homelessness (57%) were white, higher
than the percent of all people experiencing
homelessness who were white (47%), and
slightly higher than the percentage of people in
Since 2016
• The number of homeless veterans increased by
585 people between 2016 and 2017.
• This 2016-2017 increase was driven entirely
by an 18 percent increase in the number
of veterans experiencing homelessness in
unsheltered places (2,299 more veterans).
Partly offsetting the increase in unsheltered
veterans, the number of sheltered veterans
decreased by 1,714 people (or 7%).
• The number of homeless veterans who were
women increased by seven percent (243
additional female veterans), and the number
of veterans who were men increased by one
percent (347 additional male veterans). These
increases were driven by increases in the
unsheltered population for both genders.
• The number of veterans who were Hispanic
increased between 2016 and 2017, by 586
people (or 17%). Hispanic veterans comprise 10
percent of all homeless veterans and 15 percent
of unsheltered veterans, up from 9 percent and
13 percent in 2016.
• Increases among veterans experiencing
homelessness were due entirely to increases
among veterans in households without children.
The number of veterans in families declined
overall (by 16%), among sheltered veterans (by
11%) and unsheltered veterans (by 29%).
52

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
Since 2009
• Point-in-time data started to identify veterans
in 2009. The number of veterans experiencing
homelessness increased between 2009 and 2010
and then dropped every year until this past year.
• Since 2009, veteran homelessness has dropped
considerably, with 45 percent (or 33,311) fewer
veterans experiencing homelessness in 2017
than in 2009.
• Veteran homelessness decreased both
among those in shelters and those found in
unsheltered locations. Between 2009 and 2017,
the number of unsheltered veterans decreased
by 49 percent (or 14,592 fewer veterans), and
by 43 percent (or 18,719 fewer veterans) among
those staying in shelters.
EXHIBIT 5.2: Proportion of Adults Experiencing Homelessness Who Are Veterans
Sheltered Status, 2017
Sheltered Status
# of Veterans Experiencing
Homelessness
# of Adults Experiencing
Homelessness
% of Adults Experiencing
Homelessness Who are
Veterans
Total 40,056 438,913 9.1
Sheltered 24,690 257,578 9.6
Unsheltered 15,366 181,335 8.5
EXHIBIT 5.3: Demographic Characteristics of Homeless Veterans
2017
All Veterans Sheltered Veterans Unsheltered Veterans
Characteristic
# % # % # %
Total Veterans 40,056 100 24,690 100% 15,366 100
Gender
Female 3,571 8.9 2,071 8.4 1,500 9.8
Male 36,302 90.6 22,556 91.4 13,746 89.5
Transgender 131 0.3 51 0.2 80 0.5
Don’t Identify as Male,
Female, or Transgender
52 0.1 12 0.0 40 0.3
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic 35,912 89.7 22,781 92.3 13,131 85.5
Hispanic 4,144 10.3 1,909 7.7 2,235 14.5
Race
White 22,744 56.8 13,718 55.6 9,026 58.7
African American 13,260 33.1 9,245 37.4 4,015 26.1
Asian 447 1.1 188 0.8 259 1.7
Native American 1,307 3.3 496 2.0 811 5.3
Pacific Islander 376 0.9 134 0.5 242 1.6
Multiple Races 1,922 4.8 909 3.7 1,013 6.6
EXHIBIT 5.4: Change in Numbers of Homeless Veterans
By Sheltered Status, 2009–2017
2016–2017 2010–2017 2009–2017
# % # % # %
Total Veterans 585 1.5 -34,031 -45.9 -33,311 -45.4
Sheltered -1,714 -6.5 -18,747 -43.2 -18,719 -43.1
Unsheltered 2,299 17.6 -15,284 -49.9 -14,592 -48.7
53

5State 1National Estimates
Homeless Veterans
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2009-2017
EXHIBIT 5.5: Estimates of Homeless Veterans
By State, 2017
WA
2,093
OR
1,251
NV
832
CA
11,472
AK
124
MT
ND
205
74
ID
SD
228
WY 130
63
NE
174
UT
220 CO
1,078 KS
217
AZ NM
970 248
TX
2,200
OK
349
ME,131
VT, 94
MN
NH, 124
281
WI
NY MA, 853
329 MI
1,244 RI, 95
773
CT, 191
IA
PA
171 IL
NJ, 583
OH 963
864 IN 862
DE, 91
615 WV MD, 536
VA
MO
KY 137 DC, 285
478
538 489
NC, 931
Share of Homeless Veterans
TN, 757
AR
SC
Less than 1%
239
480
MS AL
1%–2.9%
GA
57 269
3%–6%
712
LA
Greater than 6%
383
FL 2,817
HI
615
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Just under 30 percent of all veterans
experiencing homelessness were in California
(29% or 11,472 veterans).
• In three states, more than half of all veterans
experiencing homelessness were unsheltered.
Those states were: California (67%), Hawaii
(62%), and Oregon (53%).
• Three states sheltered more than 95 percent
of homeless veterans. In Nebraska, only one
percent of veterans were unsheltered, in Rhode
Island only three percent, and in New York five
percent.
• Some states with large numbers of homeless
veterans are not among the states with the
largest numbers of veterans. Oregon had the
fifth largest number of veterans experiencing
homelessness, but the 25th largest number
of veterans. Colorado had the seventh largest
homeless veteran population and the 19th
largest population of all veterans. In Virginia,
the reverse was true. The state had the eighth
largest population of veterans and was 25th
in its population of veterans experiencing
homelessness.
Since 2016
• While homelessness among veterans increased
nationwide between 2016 and 2017, veteran
homelessness decreased in 36 states and the
District of Columbia. The largest absolute
decreases were in Georgia (343 fewer
veterans) and South Carolina (258). The largest
percentage decrease was in Mississippi (60%),
followed by North Dakota (36%), South Carolina
(35%), and Utah (34%).
• The number of veterans experiencing
homelessness increased in 14 states between
2016 and 2017. The largest absolute increases,
and those driving the nationwide increase,
were in California (1,860 more veterans),
Washington (609), and Texas (432). The largest
percentage increases were in Washington (41%),
Kansas (28%), Texas (24%), and Montana (24%).
54

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
55

5State 1National Estimates
Homeless Veterans
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2009–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
EXHIBIT 5.6: States with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered Veterans
2017
Highest Rates
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
OREGON
WASHINGTON
NEW MEXICO
66.7%
61.5%
53.4%
47.7%
45.6%
11,472 Homeless
7,657 Unsheltered
615 Homeless
378 Unsheltered
1,251 Homeless
668 Unsheltered
2,093 Homeless
999 Unsheltered
248 Homeless
113 Unsheltered
Lowest Rates
NEBRASKA
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
1.1%
3.2%
4.7%
5.3%
5.3%
174 Homeless
2 Unsheltered
95 Homeless
3 Unsheltered
1,244 Homeless
58 Unsheltered
853 Homeless
45 Unsheltered
94 Homeless
5 Unsheltered
Since 2009
• Between 2009 and 2017, the number of
veterans experiencing homelessness decreased
in 45 states plus the District of Columbia, with
the largest absolute decreases in California
(6,501 fewer veterans), New York (4,635), and
Florida (4,318). New York also had a large
percentage decrease, 79 percent. Other large
percentage decreases were in Mississippi
(84%), Louisiana (81%), and Alabama (75%).
• The number of veterans experiencing
homelessness increased in five states between
2009 and 2017. The largest absolute increases
were in Washington (130 more veterans) and
Hawaii (116). The largest percentage increases
were in Vermont (54%) and Utah (33%).
56

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 5.7: Largest Changes in Homeless Veterans
By State, 2016-2017 and 2009-2017
Largest Increases
2016–2017 2009–2017
CALIFORNIA 1,860 / 19.4% WASHINGTON 130 / 6.6%
WASHINGTON 609 / 41.0% HAWAII 116 / 23.3%
TEXAS 432 / 24.4% UTAH 54 / 32.5%
KANSAS 48 / 28.4% VERMONT 33 / 53.6%
NORTH CAROLINA 43 / 4.8% MAINE 8 / 6.5%
Largest Decreases
GEORGIA -343 / -32.5% CALIFORNIA -6,501 / -36.2%
SOUTH CAROLINA -258 / -35.0% NEW YORK -4,635 / -78.8%
PENNSYLVANIA -173 / -15.2% FLORIDA -4,318 / -60.5%
UTAH -115 / -34.3% TEXAS -3,291 / -59.9%
ALABAMA -104 / -27.9% GEORGIA -2,048 / -74.2%
Note: Figures from 2009-2017 exclude North Dakota, Colorado, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Michigan.
57

5Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homeless Veterans
Homelessness in the United States
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
Smaller Cities, Counties, and Regional CoCs
Data source: PIT 2009-2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
Major Cities
0 EXHIBIT 5.8: Homeless Veterans 100
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2017
Homeless
Veterans
Sheltered
Veterans
Unsheltered
Veterans
0% 100%
48.3
44.3
42.5
54.6 32.1
38.5 13.2
13.1
13.3
• The smaller city, county, and regional CoCs
of Santa Cruz City and County and Orange
County in California had rates of unsheltered
veterans at or above 85 percent (92% and 88%).
Somerset County in New Jersey sheltered all
veterans experiencing homelessness in 2017.
• Hawaii BoS and Georgia BoS had the highest
rates of unsheltered veterans in the BoS and
statewide category, with 86 percent and 75
percent, respectively.
Major Cities
Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Nearly half of all homeless veterans were in
major cities (48%). Smaller cities, counties,
and regional CoCs accounted for a 39 percent,
while 13 percent of homeless veterans were in
BoS and statewide CoCs.
• Major cities accounted for a higher percentage
of unsheltered veterans than of sheltered
veterans (55% versus 44%). In contrast, smaller
cities, counties, and regional CoCs had a larger
share of all sheltered veterans (43%) than of
unsheltered veterans (32%).
• Some major cities with the largest numbers
of homeless veterans are not among the cities
with the largest numbers of veterans. Seattle,
WA has the second largest number of homeless
veterans but was 34th in its number of all
veterans. San Antonio, TX and Jacksonville,
FL had the second and fifth largest numbers
of veterans but the 25th and 39th largest
populations of homeless veterans.
• The five major cities with the highest
percentage of homeless veterans staying in
unsheltered locations were in California. Los
Angeles had the highest rate, with 76 percent
of homeless veterans staying in unsheltered
locations there.
Continuums of Care (CoC) Were
Divided into Three Geographic
Categories
Major city CoCs (n=48) cover the 50 largest
cities in the United States. In two cases
(Phoenix and Mesa, AZ, and Arlington and
Fort Worth, TX), two large cities were located
in the same CoC.
Smaller city, county, and regional CoCs
(n=306) are jurisdictions that are neither one
of the 50 largest cities in the United States nor
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs.
Balance of State (BoS) and statewide CoCs
(n=40) are typically composed of multiple
rural counties or represent an entire state.
Changes over Time
• Between 2016 and 2017 all of the increases
in veteran homelessness occurred in major
cities. The number of veterans experiencing
homelessness increased by 12 percent in major
cities (2,026 more veterans) but declined across
the other two categories of CoCs. In major
cities, a 48 percent increase in the number of
unsheltered veterans was only partly offset by
a six percent decline in sheltered veterans.
58

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
• However, since these data were collected in
2009, the number of veterans experiencing
homelessness has dropped considerably across
all CoC categories. The number of veterans
experiencing homelessness dropped by 31
percent in major cities and by 29 percent in
both smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs
and BoS and statewide CoCs.
• Between 2009 and 2017, both smaller cities,
counties, and regional CoCs and BoS and
statewide CoCs experienced larger declines
in the numbers of veterans in unsheltered
locations (44% and 40%, respectively) than in
sheltered locations (19% and 20%). In major
cities the reverse was true. Since 2009 the
number of veterans in shelter in major cities
declined by 43 percent, and by five percent in
unsheltered locations. This is due in large part
to the recent uptick in unsheltered veterans in
major cities.
EXHIBIT 5.9: CoCs with the Largest Numbers of Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category, 2017
Major City CoCs Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
CoC
Total
Homeless
Veterans
CoC
Total
Homeless
Veterans
CoC
Total
Homeless
Veterans
Los Angeles City & County, CA 4,476 Honolulu, HI 449 Texas Balance of State 674
Seattle/King County, WA 1,329
Santa Ana/Anaheim/Orange
County, CA
San Diego City and County, CA 1,067 St.Petersburg/Clearwater/
Largo/Pinellas County, FL
Las Vegas/Clark County, NV 691
San Francisco, CA 684
San Jose/Santa Clara City &
County, CA
Asheville/Buncombe County,
NC
Watsonville/Santa Cruz City &
County, CA
405 Washington Balance of State 383
329 Oregon Balance of State 379
239 Colorado Balance of State 332
236 Indiana Balance of State 287
660 Chester County, PA 224 Arizona Balance of State 238
Denver, CO 548 Pasco County, FL 220 Montana Statewide 205
New York City, NY 535
Orlando/Orange, Osceola,
Seminole Counties, FL
Oakland/Alameda County, CA 531 Pittsfield/Berkshire County, MA 213
Chicago, IL 528
Santa Rosa/Petaluma/Sonoma
County, CA
218 Wisconsin Statewide 180
North Carolina Balance of
State
176
211 Hawaii Balance of State 166
59

5Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homeless Veterans
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: PIT 2009-2017
EXHIBIT 5.10: CoCs with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered Veterans
Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Highest Rates
Los Angeles City &
Count, CA
Oakland/Alameda
County, CA
Major City CoCs
Total
Homeless
Veterans
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Homeless
Veterans
4,476 76.1%
531 71.2%
Watsonville/Santa
Cruz City & County,
CA
Santa Ana/Anaheim/
Orange County, CA
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Homeless
Veterans
236 91.9%
405 88.1%
Hawaii Balance
of State
Georgia Balance
of State
%
Unsheltered
166 86.1%
157 74.5%
Sacramento City &
County, CA
469 69.7% Pasco County, FL 220 79.5%
Texas Balance of
State
674 65.9%
San Jose/Santa Clara
City & County CoC,
CA
660 68.5% Eugene/Springfield/
Lane County, OR
164 73.2%
Oregon Balance
of State
379 63.3%
Fresno/Madera
County, CA
211 58.3% Chico/Paradise/Butte
County, CA
110 72.7% Colorado
Balance of State
332 57.5%
Omaha/Council
Bluffs, NE
Minneapolis/
Hennepin, MN
104 1.0% Somerset County, NJ 100 0.0% Wisconsin
Balance of State
110 2.7% Chester County, PA 224 0.4%
Boston, MA 233 3.4% Cincinnati/Hamilton,
OH
Memphis/Shelby
County, TN
Indianapolis, IN 328 4.6%
213 4.2% Pittsfield/Berkshire
County, MA
Nassau, Suffolk
Counties/Babylon/
Islip/Huntington, NY
Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories, and CoCs with fewer than 100 total homeless veterans.
South Dakota
Statewide
192 1.0% Connecticut
Statewide
213 1.9%
141 2.1%
Maine Balance
of State
Indiana Balance
of State
180 5.0%
130 5.4%
143 8.4%
131 8.4%
287 10.8%
60

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 5.11: Veterans Experiencing Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2009–2017
25000
20,922
Major Cities,
Sheltered
20000
19,191
Major Cities,
Unsheltered
16,149
15000
10000
5000
12,960
8,689
4,047
3,404
14,253
13,865
11,296
9,947
8,643
8,595
4,801 4,851
4,034
3,369
13,736
13,444
10,932
10,479
8,336
7,308
5,944 4,900
5,058
4,265
3,239
2,807
2,029
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Sheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Unsheltered
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs,
Sheltered
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs,
Unsheltered
0
2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
EXHIBIT 5.12: Change in Numbers of Homeless Veterans
By Sheltered Status and CoC Category, 2016–2017
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
Major Cities 2,026 11.8 -660 -5.7 2,686 47.5
Smaller Cities, Counties, and
Regional CoCs
-1,185 -7.2 -1,027 -8.9 -158 -3.1
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs -198 -3.6 -22 -0.7 -176 -8.0
61

6National 1National Estimates
Homelessness Chronically Homeless in the United Individuals States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 6.1: PIT Estimates of
Chronically Homeless Individuals
By Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
119,813 120,115
107,212
106,062
86,289
86,962
78,045
96,268
83,170
74,697
61,620 62,733 64,551 83,989
63,621 77,486
56,87152,786
60,333
54,815 52,890
41,768 45,418 45,592
43,329
103,522
38,971 32,647
29,418 31,203
28,355 24,596 26,629
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Chronically Homeless Individuals
Sheltered Chronically Homeless Individuals
Unsheltered Chronically Homeless Individuals
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Nearly one-quarter of individuals experiencing
homelessness had chronic patterns of
150000 homelessness (86,962 of 369,081 homeless
individuals, or 24%).
120000 • Nearly seven in ten chronically homeless
individuals (69% or 60,333 people) were
90000 staying in unsheltered locations such as under
bridges, in cars, or in abandoned buildings.
60000
This is much higher than the unsheltered rate
for all people experiencing homelessness as
individuals in the United States, which was 48
30000
percent.
Since 2016:
• For the first time since 2008, the number
of individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness increased. Between 2016 and
2017, chronic homelessness increased by 12
percent overall (or by 9,476 people), by eight
percent (or 2,033) among sheltered individuals,
and by 14 percent (or 7,443 people) among
unsheltered individuals.
• Individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness made up a slightly larger share
of all homeless individuals in 2017 (24%) than
in 2016 (22%).
Since 2007:
• While chronic homelessness increased recently,
27 percent fewer individuals had chronic
patterns of homelessness in 2017 than did in
2007, a decline of 32,851 people. The number
of individuals who were unsheltered and
chronically homeless decreased by 17,712
(23%), and the number of sheltered chronically
homeless individuals declined by 15,139 (36%).
• Between 2007 and 2017, the share of
individuals experiencing homelessness who
had chronic patterns of homelessness declined
from 29 percent to 24 percent.
• The share of chronically homeless individuals
who were unsheltered was higher in 2017
(69%) than in 2007 (65%).
0
EXHIBIT 6.2: Change in Numbers of Chronically Homeless Individuals
By Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
Total Chronically
Homeless Individuals
Sheltered Chronically
Homeless Individuals
Unsheltered
Chronically Homeless
Individuals
Change 2016–2017 Change 2010–2017 Change 2007–2017
# % # % # %
9,476 12.2% -19,100 -18.0% -32,851 -27.4%
2,033 8.3% -16,700 -38.5% -15,139 -36.2%
7,443 14.1% -2,400 -3.8% -17,712 -22.7%
62

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
63

6State 1National Estimates
Homelessness Chronically Homeless in the United Individuals States
Data source: PIT 2007-2017, Excludes PR and US territories
EXHIBIT 6.3: Estimates of Chronically Homeless Individuals
By State, 2017
WA
4,357
OR
3,120
NV
502
CA
35,798
AK
216
ID
391
UT
163
AZ
1,463
MT
182
WY
14
CO
2,126
NM
712
ND
37
SD
101
NE
361
KS
252
OK
578
TX
3,497
ME, 189
VT, 111
MN
NH, 100
813
WI
NY MA, 1,238
342 MI
5,087 RI, 240
709
PA
CT, 387
IA
IL OH
NJ,
170
1,372 955
1,355 IN 725
DE, 123
486 WV MD, 1,436
VA
MO
KY 188 864
DC, 1,470
883
383
Share of Chronically
NC, 994
Homeless Individuals
TN, 1,295
AR
SC
Less than 1%
450
792
MS AL
1%–2.9%
GA
61 344 963
3%–6%
LA
Greater than 6%
609
FL
4,951
HI
1,588
On a Single Night in January 2017
• California accounted for 42 percent of
all individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness in the United States, which
is higher than its share of all individuals
experiencing homelessness in the United
States (31%). California accounted for more
than half of the nation’s unsheltered chronically
homeless individuals (53%).
• More than half of all chronically homeless
individuals were in three states: CA (42%), NY
(6%), and FL (6%).
• In nine states, the percent of chronically
homeless individuals staying in unsheltered
locations exceeded 70 percent, with California
and Hawaii reporting the highest rates (88%
and 90%).
• Wyoming and Maine sheltered all individuals
with chronic patterns of homelessness. Rhode
Island and Indiana also had low rates of
unsheltered chronic homelessness, with 10
percent of individuals living in unsheltered
locations in Rhode Island and 11 percent in
Indiana.
• Individuals were most likely to have chronic
patterns of homelessness if they were in
the District of Columbia, with 41 percent
of homeless individuals there experiencing
chronic homelessness. Three states had rates
above 30 percent: New Mexico (38%), Hawaii
(35%), and California (32%). These three states
and the District of Columbia also had among
the highest rates of homeless individuals with
chronic patterns of homelessness in 2016.
64

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 6.4: States with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered Chronically
Homeless Individuals
2017
Highest Rates
HAWAII
CALIFORNIA
MISSISSIPPI
FLORIDA
NEVADA
89.7%
87.6%
78.7%
77.2%
75.9%
1,588 Homeless
1,424 Unsheltered
35,798 Homeless
31,368 Unsheltered
61 Homeless
48 Unsheltered
4,951 Homeless
3,824 Unsheltered
502 Homeless
381 Unsheltered
Lowest Rates
MAINE
WYOMING
RHODE ISLAND
INDIANA
WISCONSIN
0.0%
0.0%
10.4%
11.1%
19.6%
189 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
14 Homeless
0 Unsheltered
240 Homeless
25 Unsheltered
486 Homeless
54 Unsheltered
342 Homeless
67 Unsheltered
EXHIBIT 6.5: Largest Change in the Numbers of Chronically Homeless Individuals
By State, 2007–2017
2016–2017 2007–2017
Largest Increases
CALIFORNIA 5,996 / 20.1% WASHINGTON 1,754 / 67.4%
WASHINGTON 2,050 / 88.9% HAWAII 810 / 104.1%
NEW YORK 975 / 23.7% IDAHO 296 / 311.6%
COLORADO 484 / 29.5% OREGON 291 / 10.3%
ILLINOIS 418 / 44.6% SOUTH CAROLINA 219 / 38.2%
Largest Decreases
GEORGIA -695 / -41.9% CALIFORNIA -4,543 / -11.3%
FLORIDA -464 / -8.6% TEXAS -4,434 / -55.9%
TENNESSEE -345 / -21.0% FLORIDA -2,512 / -33.7%
NEW HAMPSHIRE -127 / -55.9% OHIO -1,583 / -68.6%
SOUTH CAROLINA -121 / -13.3% NEW JERSEY -1,570 / -62.2%
Due to methodological changes, Michigan was excluded from the list of largest changes 2007-2017.
65

6State 1National Estimates
Homelessness Chronically Homeless in the United Individuals States
Data source: PIT 2007–2017; Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. territories
Changes Over Time
• Over half of all states, 28, experienced an
increase between 2016 and 2017 in the
number of individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness. California by far had the largest
increase, with 5,996 more chronically homeless
individuals in 2017 than in 2016. The next
largest increase occurred in Washington, with
2,050 more individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness there in 2017. Other states with
the largest absolute increases were: New York
(975), Colorado (484), and Illinois (418).
• Of the 22 states and the District of Columbia
that had declines in the number of chronically
homeless individuals between 2016 and 2017,
the largest absolute decreases occurred in
Georgia (695 fewer people), Florida (464), and
Tennessee (345).
• Over a longer period of time, 2007-2017,
38 states and the District of Columbia had
decreases in chronic homelessness among
individuals. California experienced the largest
decline in the number of chronically homeless
individuals, with 4,543 fewer chronically
homeless individuals in 2017 than in 2007.
Texas also experienced a considerable
decline, with 4,434 fewer chronically
homeless individuals. Other states with large
absolute declines were: Florida (2,512 fewer
people), Ohio (1,583), New Jersey (1,570),
Massachusetts (1,552), and Georgia (1,521).
• Among the 12 states that experienced increases
in the number of individuals with chronic
patterns of homelessness between 2007 and
2017, the largest absolute increases occurred
in Washington, with 1,754 more chronically
homeless individuals in 2017 than in 2007.
Other states with large absolute increases
were: Hawaii (810 more chronically homeless
individuals), Idaho (296), and Oregon (291).
More than half of all chronically
homeless individuals were in three
states: CA (42%), NY (6%), and FL
(6%).
66

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
67 67

6Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homelessness Chronically Homeless in the United Individuals States
Data source: PIT 2007-2017
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
Smaller Cities, Counties, and Regional CoCs
Major Cities
EXHIBIT 6.6: Chronically Homeless
Individuals
0 100
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2017
All Chronically
Homeless
Sheltered
Chronically Homeless
Individuals
Unsheltered
Chronically Homeless
Individuals
0% 100%
Major Cities
51.2
57.3
33.3 9.4
36.3
12.5
60.1 31.9 8.0
Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
On a Single Night in January 2017
• Los Angeles had the largest number
of individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness, with 19 percent of the nation’s
chronically homeless individuals, 16,016 people.
New York City had the second largest number,
with 4,401 individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness.
• Major city CoCs accounted for 57 percent
of all individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness, smaller cities, counties and
regional CoCs had 33 percent, and BoS and
statewide CoCs accounted for nine percent of
chronically homeless individuals.
• Major cities accounted for a larger share of the
chronically homeless individual population
found in places not suitable for human
habitation, (60%) than of the sheltered chronic
population (51%).
• Boston, MA had the lowest percentage
of individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness who were unsheltered, at seven
percent. Maine BoS reported no unsheltered
chronically homeless individuals on the night of
the count. Among smaller cities, counties, and
regional CoCs, Cambridge, MA reported the
lowest unsheltered rate (14%) followed closely
by Grand Rapids, MI (15%).
• The District of Columbia and Long Beach,
CA had the highest rates of chronic
homelessness among homeless individuals
of major cities, each with 41 percent. While
Los Angeles and New York had the largest
numbers of individuals with chronic patterns
of homelessness, their rates of chronic
homelessness were not among the highest
(34% in Los Angeles and 14% in New York).
• Among smaller cities, counties, and regional
CoCs, Hendry, Hardee, and Highlands
Counties in Florida had the highest rate of
chronic homelessness among individuals
(63%) followed by Norman, OK (61%). In New
Mexico BoS, almost half (48%) of individuals
experiencing homelessness had chronic
patterns of homelessness, the highest rate of its
CoC category.
Continuums of Care (CoC) Were
Divided into Three Geographic
Categories
Major city CoCs (n=48) cover the 50 largest
cities in the United States. In two cases
(Phoenix and Mesa, AZ, and Arlington and
Fort Worth, TX), two large cities were located
in the same CoC.
Smaller city, county, and regional CoCs
(n=306) are jurisdictions that are neither one
of the 50 largest cities in the United States nor
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs.
Balance of State (BoS) and statewide CoCs
(n=40) are typically composed of multiple
rural counties or represent an entire state.
68

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 6.7: CoCs with the Largest Numbers of Chronically Homeless Individuals
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Major City CoCs Smaller City, County, and Regional CoCs Balance of State and Statewide CoCs
Total
Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
CoC
Total
Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
CoC
Total
Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
Los Angeles City & County, CA 16,016 Honolulu, HI 1,037 Washington Balance of State 834
New York City, NY 4,401 Salinas/Monterey, San Benito
Counties, CA
Seattle/King County, WA 2,483 Santa Ana/Anaheim/Orange
County, CA
San Francisco, CA 2,112 St. Petersburg/Clearwater/
Largo/Pinellas County, FL
San Diego City and County, CA 2,088 Santa Rosa/Petaluma/Sonoma
County, CA
San Jose/Santa Clara City &
County, CA
2,018 Eugene/Springfield/Lane
County, OR
Oakland/Alameda County, CA 1,620 Ft Lauderdale/Broward County,
FL
District of Columbia 1,470 Watsonville/Santa Cruz City &
County, CA
Portland-Gresham-Multnomah
County, OR
1,240 Chico/Paradise/Butte County
CoC, CA
900 Texas Balance of State 764
873 Colorado Balance of State 722
690 Oregon Balance of State 668
577 Hawaii Balance of State 551
568 New Mexico Balance of State 368
558 Arizona Balance of State 358
525 Connecticut Balance of State 339
495 North Carolina Balance of State 321
Sacramento City & County, CA 1,091 Vallejo/Solano County, CA 425 Indiana Balance of State 305
Changes Over Time
• Between 2016 and 2017, the number
of individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness increased both in major cities and
in smaller cities, counties, and regional CoCs,
while it dropped in BoS and statewide CoCs.
• Increases between 2016 and 2017 were steepest
in major cities, with 9,234 more chronically
homeless individuals in those CoCs (a 23%
rise). Major cities experienced increases in
the number of sheltered chronically homeless
individuals (14% increase) and unsheltered
chronically homeless individuals (27%).
• Los Angeles, CA experienced the largest
increase, with 3,046 more individuals with
chronic patterns of homelessness in 2017 than
in 2016 -- 33 percent of the total increase in the
major cities CoC category. Of the 48 CoCs in the
major cities category, 29 experienced increases
and 19 experienced declines, signifying that
these increases were not accounted for by only
a few CoCs. Between 2007 and 2017, the numer
of people with chronic patterns of homelessness
fell nationally by 27 percent. Declines occurred
across CoC types, with a 14 percent decline
in major cities, 39 percent decrease in smaller
cities, counties and regional CoCs, and a 38
percent decline in BoS or statewide CoCs.
• While the number of unsheltered individuals
with chronic patterns of homelessness in
major cities in 2017 was lower than it was in
2007, it has risen steadily since 2014. Much of
the variability is related to fluctuations in the
number of unsheltered chronically homelessness
individuals in Los Angeles. Removing Los
Angeles from analysis shows unsheltered
chronic homelessness in major cities declining
each year between 2011 and 2016, but
increasing by 34 percent in the last year.
69

6Estimates 1National Estimates by CoC
Homelessness Chronically Homeless in the United Individuals States
Data source: PIT 2007-2017, Excludes Puerto Rico and U.S. Territories
EXHIBIT 6.8: CoCs with the Highest and Lowest Rates of Unsheltered Chronically
Homeless Individuals
By CoC Category, 2017
CoC
Highest Rates
Los Angeles City &
County, CA
Fresno/Madera
County, CA
San Jose/Santa Clara
City & County, CA
Major City CoCs
Total
Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
Smaller City, County,
and Regional CoCs a
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
16,016 95.4% Hendry, Hardee,
Highlands Counties,
FL
688 93.5% Ocala/Marion
County, FL
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs
Total
%
Unsheltered CoC Chronically
Homeless
Individuals
236 100.0% Hawaii Balance
of State
137 100.0% Arizona Balance
of State
2,018 87.1% Amarillo, TX 112 100.0% Georgia Balance
of State
%
Unsheltered
551 95.1%
358 83.5%
210 79.0%
Oakland/Alameda
County, CA
1,620 86.8% Merced City &
County, CA
120 99.2% Texas Balance of
State
764 78.1%
San Antonio/Bexar
County, TX
646 85.3% Lake County, CA 134 98.5% Washington
Balance of State
834 75.9%
Lowest Rates
Boston, MA 526 7.2% Cambridge, MA 181 14.4% Maine Balance
of State
Omaha/Council
Bluffs, NE
Minneapolis/
Hennepin County,
MN
Dallas City &
County/Irving, TX
276 13.8% Grand Rapids/
Wyoming/Kent
County, MI
318 18.6% Pittsburgh/
McKeesport/Penn
Hills/Allegheny
County, PA
511 20.7% Yonkers/
Mount Vernon/
New Rochelle/
Westchester, NY
108 14.8% Indiana Balance
of State
117 16.2% Rhode Island
Statewide
109 16.5% Wisconsin
Balance of State
Indianapolis, IN 181 23.2% Boise/Ada County, ID 302 18.9% South Dakota
Statewide
189 0.0%
305 3.9%
240 10.4%
169 16.0%
101 19.8%
a
Excludes CoCs with less than 100 total chronically homeless individuals.
Los Angeles, CA experienced the
largest increase, with 3,046 more
individuals with chronic patterns of
homelessness in 2017 than in 2016
70

5000
The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
EXHIBIT 6.9: Individuals with Chronic Patterns of Homelessness
By CoC Category and Sheltered Status, 2007–2017
40000
39,160
35,517
Major Cities,
Sheltered
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
29,514
28,221
27,271
29703
25,477
25,629 25,769
20,034
23,843
17,673
17,383
19,996
19,162
18,848
17,531
16,279 13,237 12,949 13,536
11,720 11,505
7,006
7,654
5,803
6,041 6,083
9,611
4,718
5,979 5,712 5,056
4,204
3,702
3,313
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Major Cities,
Unsheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Sheltered
Smaller Cities, Counties,
and Regional CoCs,
Unsheltered
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs,
Sheltered
Balance of State
and Statewide CoCs,
Unsheltered
EXHIBIT 6.10: Change in Numbers of Chronically Homeless Individuals
By Sheltered Status and CoC Category, 2016–2017
40000
Total Change Sheltered Change Unsheltered Change
# % # % # %
Major Cities 9,234 23.2% 1,646 13.8% 7,588 27.2%
35000 Smaller City, County, and Regional
CoCs
1,000 3.6% 126 1.3% 874 4.9%
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs -513 -6.0% 303 10.1% -816 -14.7%
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
71
Balance of State and Statewide CoCs, Unsh

7Inventory 1National Estimates of Beds
in the United States
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: HIC 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 7.1: Inventory of Beds for Homeless
and Formerly Homeless People
2007–2017
353,800
340,906
318,673
300,282
284,298
267,106 274,786 277,537
264,440264,629
236,798
238,708 249,497
219,381 225,840 229,206
211,451 211,222
214,425 221,610 197,192
211,205 205,062207,589 185,332
188,636 195,724 200,623 201,879
173,224
159,784
144,749
120,249
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Note: The number of Permanent Supportive Housing beds in 2015 is lower
than originally reported in the 2015 AHAR. The PSH inventory was reduced
by 539 beds in the Riverside City and County CoC.
400000
This section describes the nation’s capacity to
350000 house homeless and formerly homeless people
using housing inventory data submitted by
300000 communities each year. These data provide
estimates of the number of beds for two types
250000
of projects available on the night of the Point-in-
Time count:
200000
1. Shelter projects, serving people currently
150000 experiencing homelessness: Emergency
Shelters, Transitional Housing projects, and
100000
Safe Havens
2. Permanent Housing projects, serving
formerly homeless people: Rapid
Rehousing, Permanent Supportive Housing,
and Other Permanent Housing
EXHIBIT 7.2: Distribution of Bed Inventory
By Type, 2017
Rapid
Rehousing
Transitional
Housing
44.3%
Beds for People
Experiencing
Homelessness
Other
Permanent
Housing
10.4%
13.4%
5.8%
30.9%
Emergency
Shelter
Permanent
Supportive
Housing
39.4%
55.6%
Permanent
Housing Beds
Note: The small share of Safe Haven beds (0.1%) not included in this exhibit.
On a Single Night in January 2017
• 899,059 beds available on a year-round basis
were available in emergency shelters (ES), safe
havens (SH), transitional housing (TH), rapid
rehousing (RRH), permanent supportive housing
(PSH), or other permanent housing (OPH).
• For the second consecutive year, a larger share
of beds was dedicated to housing people who
were formerly experiencing homelessness (56%)
rather than to providing temporary places to
stay in in emergency shelters, safe havens, or
transitional housing programs (44%).
• Of the 399,439 beds dedicated to sheltering
people currently experiencing homelessness, 70
percent were ES beds, and 30 percent were TH
beds. Less than one percent of these beds were
provided through SH projects (0.4%).
• Of the 499,620 beds in housing for formerly
homeless people, 71 percent were in PSH.
Smaller shares were in RRH (19%) and OPH
(10%).
72

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
Beds by Household Type, 2017
• Communities were asked to identify the
number of beds targeted to households with
adults and children (i.e., families), households
without children (i.e., adult-only households),
and households with only children.
• ES beds targeted families and adult-only
households in approximately equal proportions,
51 and 48 percent.
• TH beds were also evenly split, with 50 percent
dedicated to families and 49 percent to adultonly
households.
• RRH was initially designed to primarily serve
families. In recent years, RRH has been also
targeted to individuals, veterans, and youth. In
2017, nearly three-quarters of RRH beds (73%)
were targeted to people in families.
• Almost two-thirds (64%) of PSH beds were
targeted to adult-only households, while about
two-thirds (65%) of OPH beds were targeted to
families.
• Beds targeting child-only households were
rarer—only 4,042 beds in total—but were most
prevalent in ES projects.
EXHIBIT 7.3: Project Types for Homeless and Formerly Homeless People
SHELTER FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE
Emergency Shelter (ES): is a facility with the primary
purpose of providing temporary shelter for homeless
people
Transitional Housing (TH): typically provides
homeless people with up to 24 months of shelter and
supportive services
Safe Haven (SH): provides temporary shelter and
services to hard-to-serve individuals
PERMANENT HOUSING FOR FORMERLY
HOMELESS PEOPLE
Rapid Rehousing (RRH): is a housing model designed
to provide temporary housing assistance to people
experiencing homelessness, moving them quickly out
of homelessness and into permanent housing
Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH): provides
long-term housing with supportive services for
formerly homeless people with disabilities, and often
those with chronic patterns of homelessness
Other Permanent Housing (OPH): provides housing
with or without services that is specifically for formerly
homeless people but that does not require people to
have a disability
EXHIBIT 7.4: Inventory of Beds
By Household Type, 2017
Beds for Adult-Only
Households
Beds for People in
Families
Beds for Child-Only
Households
Total Year-Round
Beds
# % # % # % # %
Emergency Shelter 133,344 48.0% 141,350 50.9% 2,843 1.0% 277,537 30.9%
Transitional Housing 59,294 49.3% 59,936 49.8% 1,019 0.8% 120,249 13.4%
Safe Haven 1,653 100.0% 0 0.0% 1,653 0.2%
Rapid Rehousing 24,893 26.6% 68,789 73.4% 36 0.0% 93,718 10.4%
Permanent Supportive Housing 227,523 64.3% 126,186 35.7% 91 0.0% 353,800 39.4%
Other Permanent Housing 17,969 34.5% 34,080 65.4% 53 0.1% 52,102 5.8%
Total Beds 464,676 51.7% 430,341 47.9% 4,042 0.4% 899,059 100%
73

7Inventory 1National Estimates of Beds
in the United States
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: HIC 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 7.5: Inventory of Beds Dedicated to Specific Populations
By Household Type, 2007–2017
Bed Type
Total Beds
Beds Dedicated
to People with
Chronic Patterns of
Homelessness
Beds Dedicated to
Veterans
Beds Dedicated to
Youth*
# % # % # %
Emergency Shelter 277,537 4,756 1.7% 6,140 2.2%
Transitional Housing 120,249 15,681 13.0% 10,077 8.4%
Safe Haven 1,653 314 19.0% 8 0.5%
Rapid Rehousing 93,718 18,281 19.5% 2,323 2.5%
Permanent Supportive Housing 353,800 149,005 42.1% 100,652 28.4% 4,117 1.2%
Other Permanent Housing 52,102 1,857 3.6% 627 1.2%
Major Cities Total Beds 899,059 149,005 16.6% 141,541 15.7% 23,292 2.6%
* Beds dedicated to youth are beds set aside by programs to serve people under the age of 25 unless there are no people under 25 present.
ounties, and Regional CoCs In the case of parenting youth, these beds include beds for their children
f State and Statewide CoCs
EXHIBIT 7.6: Distribution of Beds
0 100
By Type and CoC Category*
Major Cities
Smaller Cities,
Counties, and Regional
Cocs
Balance of State and
Statewide Cocs
0% 100%
26.0
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Rapid Rehousing
34.1 11.2 8.3 41.0 5.3
14.9
12.0
40.2
33.0 16.8 13.4 31.6
Permanent Supportive Housing
Other Permanent Housing
*Excludes SH, which accounts for 0.1 or 0.2% of beds in all three CoC types
Beds Targeted to Specific Populations,
2017
• PSH programs may dedicate all or a subset of
their inventory to people with chronic patterns
of homelessness. In 2017, there were 149,005
PSH beds dedicated to people experiencing
chronic homelessness, representing 42 percent
of all PSH beds.
• Sixteen percent of all beds (141,541 beds) were
dedicated to households with veterans. More
than seven in ten beds dedicated to veterans
were PSH beds. PSH beds dedicated to veterans
accounted for 28 percent of all PSH beds.
6.6
5.2
• There were 23,292 beds targeted to
unaccompanied youth and families with youth
parents (where all members are under the age
of 25). Of these beds, 43 percent (or 10,077)
were in TH, representing about eight percent of
all TH beds.
Beds by CoC Category, 2017
• In major cities, 55 percent of all beds were in
permanent housing (RRH, PSH, OPH), and 45
percent in shelters (ES, TH, SH). In smaller
cities, counties, and regional CoCs, 59 percent
of beds were in permanent housing, and
permanent housing beds represented half of all
beds in BoS and statewide CoCs.
• In all three categories of CoCs, PSH beds
represented the majority of the inventory of
permanent housing projects, but they were
most prevalent in major city CoCs (75%).
• Considering the inventory for both currently
and formerly homeless people, in major cities,
PSH beds accounted for the largest share of the
housing inventory (41%), followed by ES beds
(34%).
• Similarly, PSH represented 40 percent of the
inventory in smaller cities, counties, and
regional CoCs, but ES beds comprised a
74

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
smaller share of the bed inventory (26%) than
the other CoC types.
• In BoS and statewide CoCs, PSH does not
represent the largest share of beds. In these
CoCs, ES represents 33 percent of their
inventory, followed by PSH (32%). BoS and
statewide CoCs have the largest share of TH
beds (17%) and RRH beds (13%).
Since 2016
• Between 2016 and 2017, the total inventory
of year-round beds for people currently or
formerly experiencing homelessness increased
by 31,957 beds, a five percent increase driven
primarily by growth in the permanent housing
inventory.
• The number of beds in shelter projects (ES,
TH, and SH) declined by 11,846 beds, or three
percent. The number of ES beds increased
by 12,908 beds (or 5%), but the TH inventory
declined by almost twice that margin, with
24,500 fewer beds (a 17% decrease). The
number of SH beds also decreased, by 254
beds.
• The inventory in housing for people formerly
experiencing homelessness grew by 43,803
beds, or 10 percent. Each project type
experienced increases since 2016: 16,577 more
beds in RRH (a 22% increase), 12,894 more
beds in PSH (4%), and 14,332 more beds in OPH
(38%).
• The number of PSH beds dedicated to serving
people experiencing chronic homelessness
increased by 37,615 beds (34%).
• The number of beds dedicated to veteran
households increased by 12,251 (10%), and the
number of beds dedicated to unaccompanied
youth and families with youth parents
increased by 2,089 (10%).
EXHIBIT 7.7: Change in the National Inventory of Beds
By Project Type, 2007-2017
Change 2016-2017 Change 2007-2017
# % # %
Total Beds 31,957 3.7% 287,767 47.1%
Emergency Shelter 12,908 4.9% 66,086 31.3%
Transitional Housing -24,500 -16.9% -90,956 -43.1%
Safe Haven -254 -13.3%
Rapid Rehousing 16,577 21.5%
Permanent Supportive
Housing
Other Permanent
Housing
12,894 3.8% 165,164 87.6%
14,332 37.9%
75

7Inventory 1National Estimates of Beds
in the United States
Homelessness in the United States
Data source: HIC 2007–2017
EXHIBIT 7.8: Inventory of PSH Beds for Chronically Homeless People
2007-2017
149,005
111,390
95,066
94,282
33.8%
17.2% 37,615
81,666
74,693
0.8% 16,324
67,964
15.5% 784
9.3% 12,616
50,602
55,256
9.9%
42,298
23.0%
6,973
37,807
6,729
9.2% 12,708
19.6%
11.9%
4,654
8,304
4,491
2007–2017
294.1%
111,198
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014
2015 2016 2017
Since 2007
• There were 287,767 more beds in 2017 for
people currently or formerly experiencing
homelessness than there were in 2007, an
increase of 47 percent.
• In 2007, there were about as many ES beds
(211,451) as there were TH beds (211,205).
Over time, the ES inventory increased, more
resources were devoted to permanent housing,
and the TH inventory declined. Between 2007
and 2017, the number of TH beds dropped by
43 percent.
• The number of PSH beds has risen each year
since 2007, as communities have increasingly
devoted resources to PSH. Over the ten-year
period from 2007 to 2017, the PSH inventory
grew by 165,164 beds in total, an increase of 88
percent.
• Much of the increase in PSH beds is for
beds targeting people experiencing chronic
homelessness. The number of those beds
increased dramatically between 2007 and 2017;
111,198 PSH beds for chronically homeless
people were added in this 10-year period, a 294
percent increase.
76

The 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 1
77

Appendix
ALABAMA
-7.7%
change from 2016
-37.3%
change from 2010
8 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
30.0%
70.0%
Estimates of Homelessness
2,985 individuals
people in families
808 with children
unaccompanied
294 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,137)
n Sheltered (2,656)
269 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
3,793
chronically homeless
344 individuals
ALASKA
-4.9%
change from 2016
-1.0%
change from 2010
25 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
15.9%
84.1%
Estimates of Homelessness
1,354 individuals
people in families
491 with children
unaccompanied
162 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (294)
n Sheltered (1,551)
124 veterans
ARIZONA
Total Homeless, 2017
1,845
-7.8%
change from 2017
-34.7%
change from 2010
13 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
35.4%
64.6%
chronically homeless
216 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
6,488 individuals
people in families
2,459 with children
unaccompanied
578 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (3,166)
n Sheltered (5,781)
970 veterans
78
Total Homeless, 2017
8,947
chronically homeless
1,463 individuals

ARKANSAS
+0.2%
change from 2016
-10.7%
change from 2010
8 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
48.4%
51.6%
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
2,068 individuals
people in families
399 with children
unaccompanied
208 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,194)
n Sheltered (1,273)
239 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
2,467
CALIFORNIA
+13.7%
change from 2016
+8.7%
change from 2010
34 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
68.2%
31.8%
chronically homeless
450 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
112,756 individuals
people in families
21,522 with children
unaccompanied
15,458 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (91,642)
n Sheltered (42,636)
11,472 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
134,278
chronically homeless
35,798 individuals
COLORADO
3.7%
change from 2016
-29.3%
change from 2010
20 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
35.3%
64.7%
Estimates of Homelessness
7,571 individuals
people in families
3,369 with children
unaccompanied
763 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (3,859)
n Sheltered (7,081)
1,078 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
10,940
chronically homeless
2,126 individuals
79

Appendix
CONNECTICUT
-13.2%
change from 2016
-21.5%
change from 2010
10 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
12.3%
87.7%
Estimates of Homelessness
2,208 individuals
people in families
1,180 with children
unaccompanied
170 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
3,388
DELAWARE
-7.1%
change from 2016
+1.2%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (416)
n Sheltered (2,972)
10 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
5.8%
94.2%
191 veterans
chronically homeless
387 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
615 individuals
people in families
379 with children
unaccompanied
45 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
994
n Unsheltered (58)
n Sheltered (936)
91 veterans
chronically homeless
123 individuals
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
110 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
-10.5%
change from 2016
+14.3%
change from 2010
12.0%
88.0%
Estimates of Homelessness
3,583 individuals
people in families
3,890 with children
unaccompanied
228 homeless youth
80
Total Homeless, 2017
7,473
n Unsheltered (897)
n Sheltered (6,576)
285 veterans
chronically homeless
1,470 individuals

FLORIDA
-4.1%
change from 2016
-44.1%
change from 2010
16 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
46.8%
53.2%
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
22,768 individuals
people in families
9,422 with children
unaccompanied
2,019 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (15,079)
n Sheltered (17,111)
2,817 veterans
GEORGIA
Total Homeless, 2017
32,190
-21.2%
change from 2016
-48.7%
change from 2010
10 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
34.6%
65.4%
chronically homeless
4,951 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
7,422 individuals
people in families
2,752 with children
unaccompanied
526 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (3,523)
n Sheltered (6,651)
712 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
10,174
chronically homeless
963 individuals
HAWAII
-8.8%
change from 2016
+23.8%
change from 2010
51 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
52.6%
47.4%
Estimates of Homelessness
4,535 individuals
people in families
2,685 with children
unaccompanied
319 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (3,800)
n Sheltered (3,420)
615 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
7,220
chronically homeless
1,588 individuals
81

Appendix
IDAHO
-9.3%
change from 2016
-13.2%
change from 2010
12 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
31.4%
68.6%
Estimates of Homelessness
1,309 individuals
people in families
728 with children
unaccompanied
113 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (639)
n Sheltered (1,398)
228 veterans
ILLINOIS
Total Homeless, 2017
2,037
-6.8%
change from 2016
-25.0%
change from 2010
8 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
20.9%
79.1%
chronically homeless
391 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
6,894 individuals
people in families
3,904 with children
unaccompanied
730 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (2,257)
n Sheltered (8,541)
864 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
10,798
chronically homeless
1,355 individuals
INDIANA
-6.2%
change from 2016
-15.7%
change from 2010
8 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
10.5%
89.5%
Estimates of Homelessness
3,623 individuals
people in families
1,815 with children
unaccompanied
294 homeless youth
82
Total Homeless, 2017
5,438
n Unsheltered (569)
n Sheltered (4,869)
615 veterans
chronically homeless
486 individuals

IOWA
-10.1%
change from 2016
-8.6%
change from 2010
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
3.8%
96.2%
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
1,500 individuals
people in families
1,256 with children
unaccompanied
140 homeless youth
KANSAS
Total Homeless, 2017
2,756
+1.4%
change from 2016
+13.0%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (104)
n Sheltered (2,652)
8 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
15.1%
84.9%
171 veterans
chronically homeless
170 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
1,423 individuals
people in families
864 with children
unaccompanied
103 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
2,287
n Unsheltered (345)
n Sheltered (1,942)
217 veterans
chronically homeless
252 individuals
KENTUCKY
-5.0%
change from 2016
-39.2%
change from 2010
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
18.1%
81.9%
Estimates of Homelessness
3,032 individuals
people in families
993 with children
unaccompanied
253 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (727)
n Sheltered (3,298)
489 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
4,025
chronically homeless
383 individuals
83

Appendix
LOUISIANA
-17.3%
change from 2016
-73.5%
change from 2010
7 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
29.5%
70.5%
Estimates of Homelessness
2,559 individuals
people in families
746 with children
unaccompanied
236 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (975)
n Sheltered 2,330)
383 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
3,305
chronically homeless
609 individuals
MAINE
+1.7%
change from 2016
-4.2%
change from 2010
17 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
7.9%
92.1%
Estimates of Homelessness
1,352 individuals
people in families
928 with children
unaccompanied
178 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
2,280
n Unsheltered (180)
n Sheltered (2,100)
131 veterans
chronically homeless
189 individuals
MARYLAND
-5.7%
change from 2016
-33.2%
change from 2010
12 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
24.0%
76.0%
Estimates of Homelessness
5,077 individuals
people in families
2,170 with children
unaccompanied
272 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,736)
n Sheltered (5,511)
536 veterans
84
Total Homeless, 2017
7,247
chronically homeless
1,436 individuals

MASSACHUSETTS
-10.4%
change from 2016
+5.5%
change from 2010
26 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
5.6%
94.4%
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
6,267 individuals
people in families
11,298 with children
unaccompanied
469 homeless youth
MICHIGAN
Total Homeless, 2017
17,565
-2.8%
change from 2016
-30.7%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (991)
n Sheltered (16,574)
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
11.3%
88.7%
853 veterans
chronically homeless
1,238 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
5,628 individuals
people in families
3,423 with children
unaccompanied
608 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
9,051
MINNESOTA
+4.5%
change from 2016
-2.6%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (1,023)
n Sheltered (8,028)
14 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
14.4%
85.6%
773 veterans
chronically homeless
709 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
3,899 individuals
people in families
3,769 with children
unaccompanied
889 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
7,668
n Unsheltered (1,108)
n Sheltered (6,560)
281 veterans
chronically homeless
813 individuals
85

Appendix
MISSISSIPPI
-15.3%
change from 2016
-46.3%
change from 2010
5 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
48.8%
51.2%
Estimates of Homelessness
1,100 individuals
people in families
372 with children
unaccompanied
59 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (719)
n Sheltered (753)
57 veterans
MISSOURI
Total Homeless, 2017
1,472
-2.5%
change from 2016
-25.7%
change from 2010
10 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
19.1%
80.9%
chronically homeless
61 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
3,768 individuals
people in families
2,269 with children
unaccompanied
548 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,152)
n Sheltered (4,885)
538 veterans
MONTANA
Total Homeless, 2017
6,037
+7.8%
change from 2016
-5.3%
change from 2010
15 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
35.6%
64.4%
chronically homeless
883 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
987 individuals
people in families
542 with children
unaccompanied
106 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (544)
n Sheltered (985)
205 veterans
86
Total Homeless, 2017
1,529
chronically homeless
182 individuals

NEBRASKA
-9.2%
change from 2016
-35.5%
change from 2010
13 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
4.8%
95.2%
1,698 individuals
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
people in families
803 with children
unaccompanied
164 homeless youth
NEVADA
Total Homeless, 2017
2,501
+5.9%
change from 2016
-30.1%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (120)
n Sheltered (2,381)
27 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
58.4%
41.6%
174 veterans
chronically homeless
361 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
7,281 individuals
people in families
552 with children
unaccompanied
2,166 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (4,578)
n Sheltered (3,255)
832 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
7,833
NEW HAMPSHIRE
+6.6%
change from 2016
-7.5%
change from 2010
11 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
12.0%
88.0%
chronically homeless
502 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
776 individuals
people in families
680 with children
unaccompanied
76 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
1,456
n Unsheltered (174)
n Sheltered (1,282)
124 veterans
chronically homeless
100 individuals
87

Appendix
NEW JERSEY
-4.0%
change from 2016
-37.9%
change from 2010
10 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
16.6%
83.4%
Estimates of Homelessness
5,433 individuals
people in families
3,103 with children
unaccompanied
492 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,414)
n Sheltered (7,122)
583 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
8,536
NEW MEXICO
+9.7%
change from 2016
-28.6%
change from 2010
12 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
32.1%
67.9%
chronically homeless
955 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
1,865 individuals
people in families
617 with children
unaccompanied
181 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (796)
n Sheltered (1,686)
248 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
2,482
NEW YORK
+3.6%
change from 2016
+36.4%
change from 2010
45 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
5.1%
94.9%
chronically homeless
712 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
37,390 individuals
people in families
52,113 with children
unaccompanied
2,829 homeless youth
88
Total Homeless, 2017
89,503
n Unsheltered (4,555)
n Sheltered (84,948)
1,244 veterans
chronically homeless
5,087 individuals

NORTH CAROLINA
-6.2%
change from 2016
-26.5%
change from 2010
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
27.3%
72.7%
6,044 individuals
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
people in families
2,918 with children
unaccompanied
434 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
8,962
NORTH DAKOTA
+18.0%
change from 2016
+36.3%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (2,451)
n Sheltered (6,511)
14 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
30.4%
69.6%
931 veterans
chronically homeless
994 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
832 individuals
people in families
257 with children
unaccompanied
80 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (331)
n Sheltered (758)
74 veterans
OHIO
Total Homeless, 2017
1,089
-3.0%
change from 2016
-19.7%
change from 2010
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
13.0%
87.0%
chronically homeless
37 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
6,688 individuals
people in families
3,407 with children
unaccompanied
695 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
10,095
n Unsheltered (1,309)
n Sheltered (8,786)
862 veterans
chronically homeless
725 individuals
89

Appendix
OKLAHOMA
+2.2%
change from 2016
-19.7%
change from 2010
11 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
26.6%
73.4%
Estimates of Homelessness
2,824 individuals
people in families
1,375 with children
unaccompanied
363 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,115)
n Sheltered (3,084)
349 veterans
OREGON
Total Homeless, 2017
4,199
+5.4%
change from 2016
-28.4%
change from 2010
34 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
57.1%
42.9%
chronically homeless
578 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
10,434 individuals
people in families
3,519 with children
unaccompanied
1,462 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (7,967)
n Sheltered (5,986)
1,251 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
13,953
PENNSYLVANIA
-7.8%
change from 2016
-2.6%
change from 2010
11 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
12.7%
87.3%
chronically homeless
3,120 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
8,271 individuals
people in families
5,867 with children
unaccompanied
756 homeless youth
90
Total Homeless, 2017
14,138
n Unsheltered (1,798)
n Sheltered (12,340)
963 veterans
chronically homeless
1,372 individuals

RHODE ISLAND
+1.7%
change from 2016
-8.0%
change from 2010
11 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
5.8%
94.2%
802 individuals
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
people in families
378 with children
unaccompanied
49 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
1,180
SOUTH CAROLINA
-22.5%
change from 2016
-12.5%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (69)
n Sheltered (1,111)
8 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
38.3%
61.7%
95 veterans
chronically homeless
240 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
2,896 individuals
people in families
1,020 with children
unaccompanied
173 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
3,916
SOUTH DAKOTA
-12.0%
change from 2016
+29.0%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (1,501)
n Sheltered (2,415)
11 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
18.1%
81.9%
480 veterans
chronically homeless
792 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
611 individuals
people in families
332 with children
unaccompanied
66 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (171)
n Sheltered (772)
130 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
943
chronically homeless
101 individuals
91

Appendix
TENNESSEE
-5.4%
change from 2016
-19.1%
change from 2010
13 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
33.3%
66.7%
Estimates of Homelessness
6,137 individuals
people in families
2,172 with children
unaccompanied
457 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (2,765)
n Sheltered (5,544)
757 veterans
TEXAS
Total Homeless, 2017
8,309
+1.8%
change from 2016
-33.0%
change from 2010
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
36.1%
63.9%
chronically homeless
1,295 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
16,708 individuals
people in families
6,840 with children
unaccompanied
1,318 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (8,493)
n Sheltered (15,055)
2,200 veterans
UTAH
Total Homeless, 2017
23,548
+1.6%
change from 2016
-13.2%
change from 2010
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
9.7%
90.3%
chronically homeless
3,497 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
1,882 individuals
people in families
970 with children
unaccompanied
180 homeless youth
92
Total Homeless, 2017
2,852
n Unsheltered (278)
n Sheltered (2,574)
220 veterans
chronically homeless
163 individuals

VERMONT
+9.7%
change from 2016
+0.4%
change from 2010
20 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
10.9%
89.1%
697 individuals
Appendix
Estimates of Homelessness
people in families
528 with children
unaccompanied
94 homeless youth
VIRGINIA
Total Homeless, 2017
1,225
-3.2%
change from 2016
-33.2%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (134)
n Sheltered (1,091)
7 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
16.6%
83.4%
94 veterans
chronically homeless
111 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
4,028 individuals
people in families
2,039 with children
unaccompanied
303 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (1,008)
n Sheltered (5,059)
478 veterans
Total Homeless, 2017
6,067
WASHINGTON
+1.4%
change from 2016
-7.7%
change from 2010
29 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
40.7%
59.3%
chronically homeless
864 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
14,781 individuals
people in families
6,331 with children
unaccompanied
2,135 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
21,112
n Unsheltered (8,591)
n Sheltered (12,521)
2,093 veterans
chronically homeless
4,357 individuals
93

Appendix
WEST VIRGINIA
-5.6%
change from 2016
-42.2%
change from 2010
7 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
14.4%
85.6%
Estimates of Homelessness
1,032 individuals
people in families
277 with children
unaccompanied
79 homeless youth
Total Homeless, 2017
1,309
WISCONSIN
-11.6%
change from 2016
-20.6%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (188)
n Sheltered (1,121)
9 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
6.8%
93.2%
137 veterans
chronically homeless
188 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
2,645 individuals
people in families
2,382 with children
unaccompanied
276 homeless youth
WYOMING
Total Homeless, 2017
5,027
+1.9%
change from 2016
+50.8%
change from 2010
n Unsheltered (340)
n Sheltered (4,687)
15 in every 10,000
people were experiencing
homelessness
41.6%
58.4%
329 veterans
chronically homeless
342 individuals
Estimates of Homelessness
622 individuals
people in families
251 with children
unaccompanied
62 homeless youth
n Unsheltered (363)
n Sheltered (510)
63 veterans
94
Total Homeless, 2017
873
chronically homeless
14 individuals

The U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Page 261 of 289

Attachment B
Ending Chronic Homelessness
Page 262 of 289

Ending Chronic Homelessness in 2017
No one with a disability should have to experience long-term homelessness.
The Opportunity
The President’s FY 2016 Budget request includes an increase of $265 million in HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants. If funded by Congress,
this would help to create the supportive housing necessary to achieve an end to chronic homelessness in 2017. Doing so will not only
save and improve quality of lives, it will also save money. Ending chronic homelessness could reduce avoidable public costs such as
avoidable emergency department visits, jail, and shelter costs.
The Need
On any given night, nearly 85,000 Americans with disabling
health conditions who have been homeless for long periods
of time—some for years or decades—can be found sleeping
on our streets, in shelters, or other places not meant for
human habitation. These men and women experiencing
chronic homelessness commonly have a combination of
mental health problems, substance use disorders, and
medical conditions that worsen over time and too often lead
to an early death.
Without connections to the right types of care, they cycle in
and out of hospital emergency departments and inpatient
beds, detox programs, jails, prisons, and psychiatric
institutions—all at high public expense. Some studies have
found that leaving a person to remain chronically homeless
costs taxpayers as much as $30,000 to $50,000 per year.
The Solution
There is a proven solution to chronic homelessness:
Supportive Housing. Supportive housing has been shown to
help people permanently stay out of homelessness,
improve health conditions, and, by reducing their use of
crisis services, lower public costs. Numerous studies have
shown that it is cheaper to provide people experiencing
chronic homelessness with supportive housing than to have
them remain homeless.
Based on this overwhelming evidence, the Obama
Administration has continued the effort begun by the prior
Administration to achieve an end to chronic homelessness
through the creation of supportive housing. In 2010, the
Administration set a goal to end chronic homelessness, and
has focused on increasing the supply of supportive housing
and promoting the adoption of Housing First practices that
help people obtain housing quickly and without barriers and
preconditions.
Source: Culhane, Metraux, and Hadley (2002)
usich.gov

Progress to Date
Since 2010, the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness on any given night has declined by 22,892, or 21 percent.
Since 2007, the number of sheltered individuals experiencing chronic homelessness declined by 25 percent, or 10,565 people, and
the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are unsheltered declined by 33 percent, or 25,632 people.
Communities—like the State of Utah—are announcing that they have achieved an end to chronic homelessness. Progress across the
country is uneven, however, and in most communities today, there are not enough supportive housing units to end chronic
homelessness. Shortfalls in the Federal budget, including through sequestration, have made it impossible to achieve the goal
nationally by the original deadline of 2015.
The Strategy
The Administration remains committed to this goal, and has reset the timeframe for achieving it from 2015 to 2017. To achieve this
goal in this timeframe, Federal agencies are working with national partners and communities to:
Create more supportive housing by redirecting existing housing resources
Leverage Medicaid and behavioral health systems to provide supportive services
Improve the targeting of supportive housing units to people experiencing chronic homelessness
Implement best practices like Housing First and assertive outreach and engagement.
However, even the most aggressive use of existing resources still leaves a gap of 25,500 supportive housing units. The requested increase
of $265 million in HUD’s budget will fill this gap and enable communities to achieve an end to chronic homelessness nationally.
The Data
Estimates of People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness
By State, 2014
SOURCE: HUD 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress
Contact
(202) 708-4663 | 1275 First Street, NE, Suite 227 | Washington, DC 20552 | usich.gov

Page 263 of 289

Attachment C
State and Local Recommendations
Page 264 of 289

January 2005 Report No. 05-01
Economic Impact of Homelessness Is Significant;
Improvements Needed at State and Local Levels
at a glance
The economic impact of homelessness in Florida is
significant, with the state, local, and federal
governments spending at least $168 million annually for
programs and services to assist the homeless. This
total excludes expenses incurred by local entities such
as the police, courts, emergency service providers,
hospital emergency rooms, and some private charities
in dealing with homeless persons, as these costs are
not tracked by homeless coalitions, service providers,
or government agencies.
Statewide, Florida is doing well in obtaining dedicated
federal funding for the homeless. However, some areas
of the state have not done well in accessing federal
funding.
State agencies assist local homeless efforts by
providing technical assistance, direct services, and
funding. However, some state agency practices and
administrative requirements of mainstream programs
could be improved.
Coordination among local homeless service providers is
occurring, but could be improved by increased
participation of service providers and full implementation
of their computerized information systems.
Scope __________________
Chapter 2001-98, Laws of Florida, directed the Office
of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability (OPPAGA) to examine state efforts to
address homelessness. As provided by law, our
report addresses the four questions below.
Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability
an office of the Florida Legislature
• What is the economic impact of homelessness
in Florida?
• To what extent are local continuums of care
accessing dedicated and mainstream federal
funding for the homeless?
• How can state agency practices be improved
to better assist the homeless?
• How can local providers better coordinate
services for the homeless?
Background _____________
Homelessness is a chronic problem in Florida. 1
In 2003, Florida’s homeless population was
estimated to range from 68,785 to 76,675 persons
on any particular day. 2 Homeless populations
include various subgroups, such as families,
veterans, senior citizens, and youth. People may
become homeless for many reasons, including
poverty, lack of affordable housing and
transportation, unemployment, illness, and
divorce. Homeless individuals also frequently
suffer from substance abuse and mental illness.
Federal, state, and local governments, faith-based
organizations, and private and non-profit entities
provide services to assist the homeless in securing
housing, employment and health and treatment
1
Florida law defines a “homeless” person as an individual who lacks
a fixed, regular, and adequate night time residence or someone
whose primary nighttime residence is a shelter, an institution, or a
public or private place not designed for regular sleeping
accommodations.
2
Homeless population based on two estimated counts conducted in
Florida during 2003.

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
services. Homeless individuals are typically
assisted at the local level through a network of
service providers that may include shelters, food
and clothing banks, and mental health and
substance abuse treatment centers.
Funding to address homelessness in Florida is
provided by a variety of sources, including
federal, state, and local governments and private
donations. See page 3 for further discussion of
homelessness funding and Appendix A, page 8,
for a list of funding sources.
State Office on Homelessness. At the state level,
the Department of Children and Families’ Office
on Homelessness serves as the central point of
contact on homeless issues. 3 The office’s primary
role is to coordinate state agencies and programs
that serve the homeless or persons at risk of
becoming homeless. The office also administers
state-funded grant programs to assist local
coalitions that serve the homeless.
The Legislature appropriated the Department of
Children and Families $726,655 and three full-time
equivalent positions to administer the Office on
Homelessness in Fiscal Year 2004-05. 4
Council on Homelessness. The Council on
Homelessness is responsible for developing
policies to reduce homelessness in the state and
advising the State Office on Homelessness. The
council also annually prepares a report to the
Governor and Legislature recommending actions
that can help reduce homelessness in Florida. The
council has 15 members representing state
agencies, gubernatorial appointees, statewide
organizations, and homeless advocacy groups.
Local Homeless Coalitions. Homeless coalitions
plan, coordinate, and monitor the delivery of
services to the homeless at the local level.
Homeless coalitions consist of local organizations
and government agencies that provide services for
the homeless. Members include mental health
and substance abuse treatment providers, county
health departments, entities that provide food
and shelter, law enforcement units, regional
workforce boards, public housing authorities,
school districts, and county and municipal
governments. As of November 2004, 29 homeless
3
Chapter 2001-98, Laws of Florida, created the state Office on
Homelessness and the Council on Homelessness.
4
The Office on Homelessness is funded primarily by general revenue.
2
coalitions representing all 67 counties were
operating in Florida.
Homeless coalitions must establish continuum of
care plans in order to be eligible to apply for federal
homeless grants from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
certain state grants administered by the State
Office on Homelessness. 5 The coalitions or a
designated lead agency are to use these plans to
establish a framework for providing emergency,
transitional, and permanent housing as well as
supportive services to the homeless and persons at
risk of becoming homeless. Sixty-one of Florida’s
67 counties are currently covered under a
continuum of care system; the remaining six
counties are rural counties that have few homeless
service providers. (See Appendix B on page 13 for
a map of areas covered by continuums of care and
their lead agencies.)
Questions and Answers ––
Our review of homelessness in Florida considered
four questions.
• What is the economic impact of homelessness
in Florida?
• To what extent are local continuums of care
accessing dedicated and mainstream federal
funds for the homeless?
• How can state agency practices be improved
to better assist the homeless?
• How can local governments and entities better
coordinate services for the homeless?
What is the economic impact of
homelessness in Florida?
Homelessness has a significant economic impact
on the state, including the costs of providing
direct services to homeless persons. As shown in
Exhibit 1, we identified $168 million in state,
federal, and local funding for programs and
services to assist the homeless, such as housing,
food preparation and distribution, transportation
and mental health counseling.
This figure does not include the expenses incurred
by various local entities, such as some private
charities as well as the police, the courts,
5
These grants include the state Challenge Grant and Homeless
Housing Assistance Grant. See Appendix A.

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
emergency service providers, and hospital
emergency rooms that deal with homeless
persons. Homeless persons often are arrested for
various minor crimes such as vagrancy, and often
require emergency health treatment. These
expenses cannot be determined because they are
not separately tracked by homeless coalitions,
service providers, and government agencies;
however, they are likely to be significant. This can
be illustrated by the case of a homeless individual
whose service-related expenses were tracked by
the homeless coalition serving the City of
Jacksonville. This person was a 35-year-old
chronically homeless male diagnosed with bipolar
disorder and alcoholism. The local homeless
coalition estimated that local entities incurred
$43,545 in costs over a seven-month period in
dealing with this individual. These costs included
amounts resulting from four separate admittances
to a crisis stabilization unit for mental illness, three
emergency room visits, two admittances to the
hospital intensive care unit, 120 total days spent in
the county jail, and two stays at a local shelter.
Exhibit 1
Identifiable Funding for Homeless Services
Totaled $168 Million in Fiscal Year 2002-03 1
Funding Source
(Federal Fiscal Year 2003 and
State Fiscal Year 2002-03)
Amount of
Funding
Federal funds dedicated to homeless
Continuum of Care programs $ 51,396,280
Emergency Shelter Grants 6,977,570
Other homeless grants 28,980,993
Federal funds available for general population,
but used to fund local homeless programs* 8,331,611 2
State funds dedicated to homeless -
Office on Homelessness State Grants $ 9,731,564
Florida Housing Finance Corporation 5,000,000
Other homeless grants 10,986,805 2
Local funds $46,464,496 2
Estimated Total $167,869,319
1 OPPAGA collected information for the time period that includes
Federal Fiscal Year 2003 and State Fiscal Year 2002-03. Funding
amounts were reported by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, State Office on Homelessness, and local
homeless coalitions.
2
Estimates of these funding amounts were provided by only nine
homeless coalitions. Total funding is likely to be greater.
Source: OPPAGA analysis of various funding data.
This figure also does not include the societal costs
of homeless, which cannot be readily calculated.
These costs could include degraded property
3
values in areas frequented by homeless persons,
lost economic activity, and disrupted education
and family situations of children affected by
homelessness.
To what extent is the state accessing
dedicated federal homeless funds?
A major source of dedicated funding for homeless
programs is the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). HUD annually
awards dedicated funds for homeless programs
created by the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act to local continuums of care. 6
Florida is doing well on a statewide basis in
obtaining dedicated homeless funding from HUD.
As shown in Exhibit 2, HUD has awarded Florida
more than its pro-rata amount of funds in each of
the last three fiscal years.
Exhibit 2
Florida Received More Than Its Pro-Rata Amount of
McKinney-Vento Act Funding From Federal
Fiscal Years 2001 to 2003
Federal Fiscal Year
2001 2002 2003
Award Amount $48,692,766 $41,239,338 $51,396,280
Pro Rata Amount 37,106,859 37,416,000 37,416,000
Difference $11,585,907 $ 3,823,338 $13,980,280
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
As part of its competitive grant process, HUD
initially estimates a “pro-rata need,” which is the
dollar expression of relative homeless assistance
needs it assigns to each community or groups of
communities using U.S. Census Bureau data.
HUD may award a community funding that
exceeds its pro-rata amount if the community’s
continuum of care entity submits a funding
application that
• meets HUD’s grant award criteria, such as
providing permanent housing for disabled adults;
• clearly identifies a priority need and includes
documentation showing how a proposed
project would eliminate or substantially
decrease the need; and
6
The federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act was passed
in 1987. It provides funding to state and local groups through
formula or competitive grants to assist communities to develop
housing and provide services for the homeless.

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
• requests renewal funding for projects that
were funded in previous years.
Continuums of care may receive less than their
pro-rata amount if HUD determines that their
funding applications do not adequately address
grant award criteria or if the continuum does not
seek renewal funding for its projects.
Some Florida continuums have not done well in
accessing HUD funding. Between 2001 and 2003,
15 continuums received less than their pro-rata
amount as initially determined by HUD. State
Office on Homelessness and HUD managers
reported that coalitions received less than their
pro-rata amount because they failed to apply for
funding, submitted applications that contained
errors or included activities that were ineligible for
funding, or did not have a permanent housing
project included in their plans.
Access to mainstream services could be
improved. A major concern in serving homeless
individuals is ensuring they have access to federal
mainstream assistance programs. Mainstream
programs are those that provide various forms of
financial, health, and social support designed to
remedy the disabling conditions and other
problems that prevent homeless individuals from
becoming healthy and living as self-sufficiently as
possible in permanent, stable housing. These
programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF), Medicaid, and Social Security
Income (SSI) are intended to help lower income
people and not dedicated to serving the homeless.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development requires local continuums of care to
report on the extent to which they are
systematically assisting homeless persons to access
federal mainstream program services as part of
their grant applications. As shown in Exhibit 3,
most of Florida’s homeless continuums of care
reported they were assisting homeless people
access several mainstream programs.
However, some continuums could improve their
efforts to help homeless individuals access federal
programs. For example, 11 of 26 continuums did
not report helping homeless persons access
services provided through the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and eight did
not report helping them access Workforce
Investment Act services.
Exhibit 3
Most Continuums of Care Assist Homeless Persons
Access Mainstream Program Services
Number of Continuums
Assisting Homeless
Mainstream Program
(N=26)
State Children’s Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP) 15
Workforce Incentive Act (WIA) 18
Supplemental Security Disability
Income (SSDI) 22
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 23
Veterans Health Care 23
Medicaid 24
Food Stamps 24
Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) 25
Source: OPPAGA analysis of 26 Continuum of Care applications.
We contacted representatives of six continuums of
care that reported that their member agencies did
not routinely help homeless persons identify,
apply for, and follow up to receive benefits for
two or more mainstream programs. These
representatives gave several reasons for not
assisting homeless individuals to access
mainstream programs, including not being aware
of programs such as SCHIP and the Workforce
Investment Act and difficulty in working with
their regional workforce agency that administers
the Workforce Investment Act. However, two
representatives indicated that their continuums
had incorrectly completed their HUD grant
applications and were in fact helping homeless
persons access mainstream programs.
One of the objectives in the Council on
Homelessness strategic plan is to increase the
percentage of homeless individuals assisted by
mainstream programs. In September 2004, the
Office on Homelessness proposed that
representatives of local continuums of care meet
with state agency officials who administer
mainstream programs to (1) identify barriers that
limit the ability of the homeless to access program
benefits, and (2) work cooperatively to develop
solutions that can eliminate those barriers. As of
November 2004, the Office on Homelessness had
developed a list of programs that local homeless
coalitions need help accessing. These programs
include the Department of Children and Families’
Emergency Financial Assistance for Housing
4

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
Program, Public Housing Authorities’ Section 8
Program, and Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families. According to Office on Homelessness
managers, workshops to address barriers posed by
these programs will take place during the first
quarter of 2005.
The council’s strategic plan also notes that it is
seeking to establish working agreements with
agencies that administer mainstream programs to
ensure there is a concerted effort to reduce
barriers to homeless individuals. To date, it has
fully executed an agreement with the Agency for
Workforce Innovation and Workforce Florida to
assist the homeless in achieving greater
independence through employment. The council
is in the process of finalizing agreements with the
Department of Community Affairs and the
Department of Corrections.
How can state agency practices be improved
to better assist the homeless?
State agencies perform a variety of functions that
benefit the homeless, including providing
technical assistance and funding to local
coalitions. (See Appendix C on page 14 for a
description of services provided by state agencies
to assist the homeless.)
Most (11 of 15) local coalition directors responding
to an OPPAGA survey gave high ratings to the
assistance provided by the state Office on
Homelessness. However, coalition directors
identified some state agency functions that could
be improved to enhance services for the homeless,
such as better discharge planning for homeless
persons and streamlining certain administrative
requirements.
Few state agencies have developed or
implemented discharge planning policies.
Discharge planning is important for people leaving
state services who are at risk of becoming
homeless. These persons include inmates exiting
state correctional facilities, children aging out of
foster care, families coming off public assistance,
developmentally disabled individuals being deinstitutionalized,
and mentally ill persons leaving
state institutions. Discharge planning refers to
preparing a person in an institution for return to
the community and linking these individuals to
needed community support services.
Some local coalition directors expressed concern
that state agencies were not adequately planning
for the discharge of persons who could potentially
become homeless. For example, the Department
of Correction’s current discharge planning efforts
relies on showing inmates instructional videos
prior to their release.
The state Council on Homelessness is working to
address these concerns and identified discharge
planning as a priority issue in its strategic plan. The
council is working with state agencies to formulate
program-level discharge planning agreements for
various populations at risk of becoming homeless.
These discharge plans are to address whether
individuals will have housing, services such as
transportation, medication, and clothing, personal
identification and documentation, employment,
benefits (TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid), and a
support network (family, friends) once they are
released. The Department of Corrections is
currently developing a discharge plan that it expects
to finalize by the end of 2004. The Office on
Homelessness expects the Department of Children
and Families, which administers state public
assistance, foster care, and mental health programs,
and the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to start
developing discharge plans in 2005.
Requirements of some assistance programs pose
barriers to homeless applicants. Coalition
directors identified several state administrative
requirements that impede homeless persons in
accessing assistance programs. They told us that
the administrative requirements of programs such
as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) make it
difficult for them to provide services to the
homeless.
Specifically, coalition directors noted client
identification and application requirements, and
the eligibility determination process for these
programs as barriers to assisting clients. Many
programs require applicants to provide
documents proving their identity, citizenship,
income, and financial resources. However,
homeless people often do not have these
documents because they may not have a safe and
secure place to store important papers. This may
delay the processing and approval of their
applications for services.
5

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
These barriers are consistent with those noted in a
2002 report by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO). The GAO report noted that
homelessness complicates the ability of people to
access program services because paperwork
requirements and the need to regularly
communicate with agencies and service providers
tend to be more difficult for individuals lacking a
permanent address or phone number. 7
How can local entities better coordinate
services for the homeless?
Homeless coalitions depend on numerous local
agencies to provide various services to homeless
persons. Local service providers include shelters,
food and clothing banks, and mental health and
substance abuse treatment centers. Ideally,
homeless individuals can access these services
through a coordinated system of local service
providers.
Most local service providers are trying to
coordinate their activities. Our review of local
continuum of care plans submitted to HUD in
2003 determined that most providers attended
meetings held to coordinate delivery of homeless
services. Over half of the local homeless coalition
directors who responded to an OPPAGA survey
reported that service providers participated in
their local continuum of care.
However, efforts to further improve coordination
are hindered by two factors:
• some homeless service providers are not
participating in their local continuums of care;
and
• most homeless coalitions have not yet fully
implemented homeless management
information systems.
Some homeless service providers do not
participate in their local continuums of care. Six
coalition directors responding to our survey
reported that some providers of homeless services
in their community were not participating in the
local continuum of care, including some public
housing authorities, public defenders, and state
attorneys. They believed that these entities may
not be participating because they do not have the
7
Homelessness: Improving Program Coordination and Client Access
to Programs, Government Accountability Office, GAO-02-485T,
March 6, 2002.
6
time or the personnel to devote to the
continuum’s activities or were not interested in
being involved. Coalition directors noted that
the limited involvement of these and other
stakeholders makes it difficult to coordinate
services, reduces their ability to acquire federal
funding, and impedes efforts to share information
about homeless individuals .
Most homeless coalitions have not yet fully
implemented homeless management information
systems. HUD requires communities that receive
federal dedicated homeless funding to track
information about their clients with a computerized
information system. These information systems are
expected to allow local providers to systematically
share information, integrate services, and maximize
the use of resources. Sharing client information also
should reduce duplication in provider intake
activities, facilitate referrals among providers, and
improve the coordination of services.
Most homeless coalition directors responding to
our survey reported their coalitions have not fully
implemented homeless management information
systems. For example, two coalition directors said
their systems had not yet been developed. Other
coalition directors told us that only a few of their
local service providers were entering information
into their systems.
Although the U.S. Congress initially intended
homeless management information systems to be
fully implemented by 2004, this goal has not been
met. According to Office on Homelessness
managers, HUD’s 2005 Notice of Funding
Availability will encourage local continuums of
care to speed up implementing their information
systems. They said that participation in a system
will be a factor in determining the amount of
funding local continuums of care receive from
HUD. HUD is also providing technical assistance
to continuum of care agencies to assist them in
implementing their homeless management
information systems.
A problem that could limit the usefulness of the
information systems is that some local providers
do not wish to use the systems due to concerns
with the confidentiality of client data. For
example, one provider director told us he did not
want to participate in the information system
because he was concerned that law enforcement
agencies would access the system and use it to

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
locate and arrest homeless persons. Until such
issues are resolved, it is likely that some local
providers will not enter client data into local
homeless information systems.
Conclusions and
Recommendations _______
The economic impact of homelessness in Florida is
significant. We identified $168 million in state,
federal, and local funding for programs and
services to assist the homeless, such as housing,
food preparation and distribution, transportation
and mental health counseling. However, this
figure excludes additional expenses incurred by
various local entities, such as the police, the
courts, emergency service providers, and hospital
emergency rooms, in dealing with homeless
persons. These expenses cannot be precisely
determined because they are not routinely
tracked by homeless coalitions, service providers,
and government agencies.
Florida is doing well on a statewide basis in
obtaining dedicated federal funding for the
homeless; however, some local homeless
continuums of care have not been successful in
accessing dedicated and mainstream federal
funding for the homeless.
State agencies assist local homeless efforts by
providing technical assistance, direct services, and
funding. However, some state agency practices
such as discharge planning could be improved, and
some administrative requirements of programs such
as Medicaid, food stamps, and TANF pose barriers
to homeless persons seeking benefits.
Coordination among local homeless service
providers is occurring, but could be improved by
getting more entities to participate in local
continuums of care and by local coalitions fully
implementing their computerized information
systems.
To improve the provision of services to homeless
in Florida, we recommend that the State Office on
Homelessness take the actions described below.
• Expand their assistance to local continuums of
care experiencing difficulty receiving the prorata
amount of dedicated federal funding for
the homeless. The office should help these
continuums develop plans and proposals that
meet federal grant award criteria and priorities;
• Develop and disseminate guidelines for
accessing and qualifying for mainstream
program benefits. In addition, the Council on
Homelessness also should continue its efforts
to establish working agreements with
mainstream program agencies to reduce
barriers to access by homeless individuals.
• Revise the terms of its grants to require subgrantees
(local service providers) to participate
in a homeless management information
system. Such information systems are expected
to benefit local providers by allowing them to
systematically share information, integrate
services, and maximize the use of resources.
In addition, we recommend that the Council on
Homelessness work with state agencies to
develop discharge plans to help prevent
individuals transitioning out of institutions and
other forms of state care from becoming homeless.
Agency Response ________
In accordance with the provisions of s. 11.51(6),
Florida Statutes, a draft of our report was
submitted to the Secretary of the Department of
Children and Families for review and response.
The Secretary’s written response is reproduced in
its entirety on page 16 (Appendix D).
OPPAGA supports the Florida Legislature by providing evaluative research and objective analyses to promote government accountability and the efficient
and effective use of public resources. This project was conducted in accordance with applicable evaluation standards. Copies of this report in print or
alternate accessible format may be obtained by telephone (850/488-0021 or 800/531-2477), by FAX (850/487-3804), in person, or by mail (OPPAGA
Report Production, Claude Pepper Building, Room 312, 111 W. Madison St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1475). Cover photo by Mark Foley.
Florida Monitor: www.oppaga.state.fl.us
Project supervised by Larry Novey (850/487-3768)
Project conducted by Michelle Harrison (850/487-9220) and Shunti H. Taylor
Gary R. VanLandingham, OPPAGA Interim Director
7

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
Appendix A
Many Funding Sources Exist to Assist Homeless
Program
Education for Homeless Children
and Youths - McKinney Act
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act Part A of Title I
Homeless Veterans Reintegration
Project - McKinney Act
Veterans Employment Program -
Title IV-C of JTPA
Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Emergency Food & Shelter
Program
State Apartment Incentive Loan
Community Health Centers
Community Services Block Grant
Head Start
Health Care for the Homeless -
McKinney Act
Purpose
Ensures homeless children, including
pre-schoolers, equal access to free and
appropriate public education.
Provides before/after school programs,
summer school, preschool, alternative
school programs, home visits, parent
education, and childcare.
Funds projects designed to expedite the
reintegration of homeless veterans into
the labor force.
Provides employment and training
grants.
Increase employment, retention, and
earning of participants.
Provides a broad range of food, shelter,
and supportive services.
Provides financial assistance to
construct or renovate apartments for
those with very low incomes; 8% setaside
specifically targeted for formerly
homeless.
Supports development and operation of
community health centers in medically
underserved areas/populations.
For services and activities to reduce
poverty, includes employment,
education, housing assistance, nutrition,
energy, emergency, and health
services.
Provides health, educational, nutritional,
social and other services to preschool
children from low-income families.
Provides primary health care, substance
abuse treatment, case management,
outreach and mental health treatment
Funding Source
and Level
U.S. Department of
Education Federal Fiscal
Year FFY04 $2.8 million.
U.S. Department of
Education State Fiscal
Year (SFY) 2003-04
$523,834,879
U.S. Department of Labor
FFY04 $150,000
U.S. Department of Labor
FFY04 $8,421,000
U.S. Department of Labor
FFY04 $143,371,066
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
FFY04 $7,695,570
Florida Housing Finance
Corporation SFY03-04
$56,499,140
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services 2003
$51,873,732
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $18,678,760
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $262,647,907
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
Calendar year 03
$5,323,136
Target
Funds
Yes
No
Lead Agency
Florida
Department of
Education
Florida
Department of
Education
Allocation
Process
Formula grant
Formula grant
Yes Direct to locals Project grants
(competitive)
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Agency for
Workforce
Innovation
Agency for
Workforce
Innovation
United Way of
Florida
Florida Housing
Finance
Corporation
Florida
Department of
Health
Florida
Department of
Community
Affairs
Formula grant
Formula grant
Formula grant
Provides low
interest loans
(competitive)
Project grant
(discretionary)
Formula grant
Eligible Populations
Homeless children and youth, including
preschool children.
Educationally deprived homeless children are
eligible.
Homeless veterans.
Veterans who are disabled, from the Vietnam
era, or have applied for service within 12
months of military separation.
Youth with education and employment
barriers. Adults with employment barriers,
certain dislocated workers.
Hungry and homeless people and those at
risk of becoming homeless.
Very low income individuals and families.
Residents of medically underserved areas.
The poor and near-poor.
No Direct to locals Project grant Primarily children ages 3-5 from low-income
families.
Yes Direct to locals Project grants
(discretionary)
Homeless individuals and families.
8

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
Program
Maternal and Child Health
Services Block Grant
Medicaid
Projects for Assistance in
Transition from Homelessness
(PATH) - McKinney Act
Runaway and Homeless Youth -
Basic Center
Runaway and Homeless Youth -
Education and Prevention Grants
to Reduce Sexual Abuse of
Runaway, Homeless, and Street
Youth
Runaway and Homeless Youth -
Transitional Living for Older
Homeless Youth
Ryan White Care Act Titles I and II
KidCare - State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant
Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF)
Purpose
Supports activities to improve the health
status of pregnant women, mothers,
infants, and children.
Provides services including in-and outpatient
hospital services, physician
services, medical and surgical dental
services, and nursing facility services.
Provides residential treatment and
support services to those with mental
illnesses and co-occurring substance
abuse, who are homeless or at risk of
being homeless.
Provides funds to establish and operate
local centers for runaway or homeless
youth.
Funds street-based education and
outreach, emergency shelter, and
related services for runaway and
homeless youth who have been, or are
at risk of being, sexually exploited and
abused.
Supports residential services (up to 18
mo.) to homeless youth to ensure
successful transition to self-sufficient
living.
Provides funds to improve the quality
and availability of care for individuals
and families living with HIV/AIDS.
Provides funds to states to enable them
to initiate an expanded child health
assistance to uninsured, low-income
children
Provides financial assistance to states
for planning, implementing, and
evaluating activities to prevent and treat
substance abuse.
Provides funding for state-designed
programs of time-limited and workconditional
aid to families with children.
Funding Source
and Level
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $20,994,684
State General Revenue &
trust funds $5,222,630,155
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
$7,738,461,947 SFY03-04
TOTAL $12,961,092,102
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $2,566,000
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $2,363,285
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $490,000
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $1,609,519
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
FFY04 $112,196,959
Agency for Health Care
Administration
$143,062,333 U.S.
Department of Health and
Human Services
$354,242,918 SFY03-04
TOTAL $497,305,251
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
SFY03-04 $95,483,056
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services
SFY03-04 $223,343,035
Target
Funds
No
No
Yes
Lead Agency
Florida
Department of
Health
Agency for Health
Care
Administration
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Allocation
Process
Formula grant
Entitlement
Formula grant
Yes Direct to locals Project grants
(discretionary)
Yes Direct to locals Project grants
(discretionary)
Yes Direct to locals Project grants
(discretionary)
No
No
No
No
Title I - direct to
locals. Title II –
Florida
Department of
Health
Agency for Health
Care
Administration
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Formula and
project grants
(discretionary)
Formula grant
Formula grant
Block grant
Eligible Populations
Pregnant women, mothers, infants and
children, and children with special health care
needs.
Low-income persons over age 65, blind, or
disabled; low-income children and pregnant
women.
Persons with mental illness, including those
with substance abuse disorders, who are
homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
Runaway and homeless youth and their
families are eligible for benefits.
Adolescents up to the age of 24 who are
living on the streets.
Homeless youth aged 16 to 21.
Low-income, uninsured, and underinsured
HIV infected individuals and their families.
Low income children and children who are
not eligible for medical assistance under
Medicaid or are not covered under a group
health or other health insurance plan.
All individuals suffering from alcohol and
other drug abuse.
Needy families with children.
9

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
Program
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
Emergency Shelter Grant -
McKinney Act
Home Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS (HOPWA)
Section 8 Project-Based Rental
Assistance (Public and Indian
Housing)
Section 8 Rental Voucher Program
(Public and Indian Housing)
Section 8 Single Room Occupancy
Moderate Rehabilitation -
McKinney Act
Shelter Plus Care Program -
McKinney Act
Supportive Housing Program -
McKinney Act
Purpose
Assists urban communities to provide
decent housing, a suitable living
environment and expanded economic
opportunities.
Provides for shelter bedspace and
supportive services for homeless.
For acquisition, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and new construction of
affordable rental and ownership units.
Provides for long-term comprehensive
strategies to meet housing needs of
persons with AIDS or related diseases
and their families.
Pays a portion (generally 70%) of
residents' rent for housing owned by
private landlords, public housing
authorities, and state housing finance
agencies.
Voucher subsidy that aids families with
very low incomes to obtain decent, safe,
and sanitary rental housing.
Rental assistance for homeless persons
living in single-room occupancy units.
Funds the moderate rehabilitation of
residential properties that will contain
multiple single-room dwelling units.
Provides rental assistance for homeless
persons with disabilities (supportive
services provided by other sources).
Provides for short-term transitional and
permanent housing with support
services for homeless persons.
Funding Source
and Level
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY04
$189,116,184
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FY04
$6,977,570
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY04
$84,125,727
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY04
$32,393,000
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
FFY04 $62,878,287
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY04
$695,181,036
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY03
$470,400
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY03
$9,066,338
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development FFY03
$41,859,544
Target
Funds
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Lead Agency
Florida
Department of
Community
Affairs and
direct to locals
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida Housing
Finance
Corporation and
direct to locals
U.S. Department
of Housing and
Urban
Development and
Florida
Department of
Health
Local housing
authorities
Local housing
authorities
Allocation
Process
Formula and
project grants
(competitive)
Formula grant
Formula grant
Formula and
project
(competitive)
Payment contract
with a private
landlord or an
annual contract
with a housing
finance agency or
a public housing
authority.
Paid directly to
housing
authorities
Yes Direct to locals Project grants
(competitive)
Yes Direct to locals Project grant
(competitive)
Yes Direct to locals Project grant
(competitive)
Eligible Populations
Persons with low and moderate incomes.
Homeless individuals and families.
Individuals and families with low and very low
incomes.
Low-income individuals with HIV or AIDS and
their families.
Individuals and families with very low
incomes.
Families with very low incomes.
Homeless single individuals.
Homeless persons with disabilities including
serious mental illness, AIDS, chronic drugs
and/or alcohol problems; and if also
homeless, their families.
Homeless individuals and families with
children eligible for all but the permanent
housing for persons with disabilities.
Homeless persons with disabilities eligible for
all components.
10

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
Program
Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)
Child and Adult Care Food
Program (includes Child Care
Centers, Family Day Care Homes,
After School Snack Program for
Children)
Emergency Food Assistance
Program
Food Stamps
Homeless Children Nutrition
Program
National School Lunch Program
School Breakfast Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC)
Summer Food Service Program
Domiciliary Care for Homeless
Veterans
Purpose
Provides monthly payments to elderly,
blind, or disabled individuals with low
incomes and few resources.
Provides meals and snacks to children
and adults in nonresidential day care
facilities
Provides free, healthful foods. Provides
states with commodity foods and funds
to help cover costs of transporting,
processing, storing, and distributing the
commodities.
Provides financial assistance for people
to buy food and improve their diets.
Homeless persons may purchase
prepared meals from authorized
providers.
Provides meals to homeless children
under age 6 in emergency shelters.
Assists the states, through cash grants
and food donations, in making the
school lunch program available to
school students.
Provides the states with cash
assistance for nonprofit breakfast
programs.
Provides supplemental nutritious foods,
nutrition education, and health care
referrals.
Provides funds for program sponsors to
serve free, nutritious meals to children
in low-income areas when school is not
in session.
Provides health and social services to
homeless veterans in a domiciliary
setting.
Funding Source
and Level
Social Security
Administration Calendar
year 02 $1,814,408
U.S. Department of
Agriculture SFY03-04
$98,573,266
U.S. Department of
Agriculture FFY04
$6,839,663 in
commodities.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture SFY03-04
$917,836,348
U.S. Department of
Agriculture SFY03-04
$501,212
U.S. Department of
Agriculture FFY03
$403,403,045 in funding
and commodities
U.S. Department of
Agriculture FFY03
$99,284,968
U.S. Department of
Agriculture FFY04
$232,902,249
U.S. Department of
Agriculture FFY03
$14,038,782 in funding
and commodities
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs FFY03
$1,284,175
Target
Funds
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Lead Agency
Direct to
recipients
Florida
Department of
Health – children;
Florida
Department of
Elder Affairs -
adults
Florida
Department of
Agriculture and
Consumer
Services
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida
Department of
Health
Florida
Department of
Education
Florida
Department of
Education
Florida
Department of
Health
Florida
Department of
Agriculture and
Consumer
Services
U.S. Department
of Veterans
Affairs - Medical
Centers
Allocation
Process
Entitlement
Entitlement
Formula grant
Entitlement
Formula grant
Eligible Populations
Individuals who are; aged 65 or older; blind;
disabled and meet monthly income and
resources limit requirements.
Children up to age 12, migrant children up to
age 15, certain children with disabilities over
age 12, functionally impaired adults and
adults aged 60 or older who are not residents
of an institution.
Needy persons who meet the eligibility
criteria established by the state.
Low income families and individuals.
Children under 6 years of age who are in
emergency shelters.
Entitlement All children enrolled in schools where the
program is operating. Free to children at or
below 130% of poverty level, reduced price
(max. 40 cents) to children between 130%
and 185% of poverty level.
Entitlement All children enrolled in schools where the
program is operating. Free to children at or
below 130% of poverty level, reduced price
(max. 30 cents) to children between 130%
and 185% of poverty level.
Formula grant Low-income pregnant, postpartum, and
breastfeeding women; infants; and children
up to the age of 5 determined to be at
nutritional risk.
Entitlement Children aged 18 or younger. Operating site
must be in eligible area (50% of children at or
below 185% of poverty level); or 50% of
participating children are eligible for free or
reduced school lunch.
Direct payments
to VA medical
centers
Veterans who are homeless or at risk of
becoming homeless and have a clinical need
for VA-based biopsychosocial residential
rehabilitation services.
11

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
Program
Homeless Chronically Mental III
Veterans Program
Purpose
Provides care, treatment, and
rehabilitative services to homeless
veterans suffering from chronic mental
illness.
HUD-VASH (Supported Housing) HUD partnership, VA provides
permanent housing and ongoing
treatment to eligible veterans.
Homeless Women's Veterans
Program
Loan Guarantee for Homeless
Vets Multi-family Housing
VA Homeless Providers Grant and
Per Diem Program
Veterans Industries/ Compensated
Work Therapy/ Transitional
Employment
Challenge Grant
Emergency Financial Assistance
for Housing
Homeless Grant-in-Aid Program
Homeless Housing Assistance
Grant
Local Homeless Coalition Grant
(Staffing Grant)
Provides outreach and social services to
homeless and potentially homeless
women veterans.
Authorizes VA to guarantee loans for
construction or rehabilitation of
multifamily/rental transitional housing for
homeless veterans.
Funds new programs and service
centers to furnish supportive services
and supportive housing for homeless
veterans.
Offers structured work opportunities and
supervised therapeutic housing.
Funds the lead agency of local
homeless continuum of care systems to
implement that system of assistance to
the homeless
Provides a one time payment up to
$400 to homeless families, or those at
immediate risk of homelessness, to
cover rent or mortgage payments to
prevent homelessness.
Direct service to homeless clients,
includes education and outreach,
eviction prevention assistance, meals,
supportive services.
Funds the construction or rehabilitation
of transitional and permanent housing
for homeless people
Helps to fund staff capacity in each of
Florida’s local homeless coalitions.
Funding Source
and Level
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs FFY03
$2,337,605
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs FFY03
$306,007
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs FFY03
$219,083
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs Pending
project in Miami
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs FFY03
$1,574,316
U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs FFY03
$123,827
State Florida Housing
Trust Fund SFY03-04
$1,648,525
State Florida Housing
Trust Fund $900,000
Federal TANF $900,000
SFY03-04 TOTAL $1.8
million
State General Revenue
SFY03-04 $665,938
State Florida Housing
Trust Fund SFY03-04
$4,438,776
State General Revenue
SFY03-04 $343,750
Target
Funds
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Lead Agency
U.S. Department
of Veterans
Affairs - Medical
Centers
U.S. Department
of Veterans
Affairs
U.S. Department
of Veterans
Affairs
U.S. Department
of Veterans
Affairs - Medical
Centers
Allocation
Process
Direct services
and contract
awards
Direct to U.S.
Department of
Veterans Affairs
Medical Centers
Direct to U.S.
Department of
Veterans Affairs
Medical Centers
Competitive
application
process / formula
Yes Direct to locals Project grant
(competitive)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
U.S. Department
of Veterans
Affairs
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Florida
Department of
Children and
Families
Direct to U.S.
Department of
Veterans Affairs
Medical Centers
Competitive
application
process
Apply at DCF
field offices.
Funds allocated
by the date of the
applications
received.
Formula grant by
district; allocated
by DCF district
administrator.
Competitive
application
process
Direct allocation
to each
recognized
coalition
Eligible Populations
Homeless veterans with substance abuse
and/or chronic mental health problems.
Homeless veterans with mental illness and
substance abuse disorders.
Homeless women veterans.
Funding may be used to support projects
serving homeless veterans and persons who
are not veterans.
Veterans who were discharged or released
under conditions other than dishonorable.
At-risk and homeless veterans with physical,
psychiatric and substance abuse disorders
Homeless individuals and families.
Families with dependent children, at or below
200% of federal poverty rate, and who are
homeless or face the threat of homelessness.
Homeless individuals and families.
Homeless individuals and families.
Homeless individuals and families.
Source: OPPAGA analysis.
12

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
Appendix B
Most Florida Counties Are Covered By a
Continuum of Care
Escambia
Santa Rosa
Okaloosa
Walton
Holmes
Washington
Bay
Northeast Zone -- Districts 3, 4, 12
Suwannee Valley - Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, and Suwannee counties
North Central Florida Continuum of Care - Alachua, Levy, and Putnam counties
Emergency Services & Homeless Coalition of Jacksonville - Duval and Clay counties
Emergency Services & Homeless Coalition of St. Johns County, Inc. - St. Johns County
Volusia/Flagler County Coalition for the Homeless - Volusia and Flagler counties
Jackson
Nassau
Gadsden
Jefferson
Calhoun
Leon
Madison
Hamilton
Duval
Baker
Liberty
Wakulla
Suwannee
Columbia
Taylor
Clay
St. Johns
Gulf
Franklin
Lafayette
Union
Bradford
Panhandle Zone -- Districts 1 & 2
Escarosa Coalition on the Homeless – Escambia and Santa Rosa counties
Okaloosa/Walton Coalition for the Homeless – Okaloosa and Walton counties
Homeless & Hunger Coalition of N.W. Florida, Inc. - Bay, Calhoun, Gulf, Holmes,
Jackson, and Washington counties
Tallahassee Coalition for the Homeless - Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty,
Madison, Taylor, and Wakulla counties
Dixie
Gilchrist
Levy
Alachua
Marion
Citrus
Sumter
Putnam
Lake
Flagler
Volusia
Seminole
Central Zone -- Districts 7, 13, 14
Brevard County Department of Housing and Human Services –Brevard County
Homeless Services Network of Central Florida - Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties
United Way of Marion County - Marion County
Mid-Florida Homeless Coalition - Citrus, Hernando, Lake, and Sumter counties
Homeless Coalition of Polk County, Inc. - Polk County
Florida Heartland Rural Consortia - DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, and
Okeechobee counties
Suncoast Zone
Coalition for the Homeless of Pasco County - Pasco County
Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless - Pinellas County
Homeless Coalition of Hillsborough County – Hillsborough County
Sarasota/Manatee Continuum of Care - Manatee and Sarasota counties
Pinellas
Hernando
Pasco
Hillsborough
Manatee
Sarasota
Polk
Hardee
DeSoto
Charlotte
Lee
Orange
Brevard
Osceola
Indian River
Okeechobee
St. Lucie
Highlands
Martin
Lake
Okeechobee
Glades
Palm Beach
Hendry
South Zone -- Districts 8, 9, 10, 15
Charlotte County Homeless Coalition - Charlotte County
Collier County Department of Financial Administration & Housing - Collier County
Lee County Department of Human Services - Lee County
Homeless Coalition of Palm Beach County, Inc. - Palm Beach County
Broward County Homeless Initiative Partnership Administration - Broward County
Treasure Coast Homeless Services Council, Inc. - Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie counties
Collier
Monroe
Broward
Dade
Miami Zone -- District 11
Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust - Miami-Dade County
Southernmost Homeless Assistance League - Monroe County
Source: Office on Homelessness.
13

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
Appendix C
State Agency Activities to Assist the Homeless
State agencies perform a variety of functions that benefit the homeless, including providing direct
services to homeless individuals and technical assistance and funding to local coalitions. The table
below lists the services that assist the homeless provided by nine state agencies.
Agency
Agency for Health Care Administration
Children and Families
Community Affairs
Education
Environmental Protection
Florida Housing Finance Corporation
Type of Assistance
• Provides Medicaid services for homeless adults who are elderly or
disabled. Children and Families determines eligibility.
• Provides hospitals with Medicaid disproportionate share money used to
compensate them for services they render to low-income patients,
including people who are homeless.
• Provides Medicaid providers an appropriation for services they render to
eligible Medicaid recipients.
• Administers state and federal grant programs to assist homeless
coalitions, homeless service providers and people who are homeless or at
risk of becoming homeless.
• Determines Medicaid eligibility for homeless families or single adults who
are disabled or elderly.
• Determines Food Stamp Program eligibility for homeless families or single
adults.
• Provides mental health treatment beds.
• Administers Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness
(PATH) for persons who have been diagnosed with both mental illness and
substance abuse problems. Provides housing assistance and outreach for
substance abuse treatment.
• Provides medical and cash assistance to refugees, including refugees who
are homeless.
• Provides services and temporary shelter to victims of domestic violence.
• Administers the federal Community Services Block Grant Program that
assists low-income households by providing such services as job training,
education, employment assistance. The program also provides temporary
assistance with emergency needs such as rent, utilities, transportation,
food, clothing, and prescription drugs.
• Develop and adopt the State of Florida Consolidated Plan, which is a
federally required document that outlines the state’s plans and efforts in
housing and community development.
• Administers federal grant programs to assist school districts in serving
homeless children.
• Administers a water supply restoration program providing short-term and
long-term safe drinking water supplies in the areas where there is a public
health threat.
• Administers federal revolving loan programs that provide low interest loans
to small communities for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure
construction.
• Administers grants to disadvantaged small community water and
wastewater systems.
• Provides affordable housing training and technical assistance to homeless
providers.
• Provides grants and low interest loans to develop affordable rental and
ownership units.
14

Report No. 05-01
OPPAGA Report
Agency
Health
Transportation Disadvantaged
Commission
Type of Assistance
• Administers the federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) Program that provides financial assistance and services (i.e.,
transitional housing, assistance with rent, mortgage, and utilities, and case
management) for persons with HIV disease and AIDS.
• Provides specialized services for people who are homeless and have
tuberculosis.
• Provides sexually transmitted disease screening and education for people
living in homeless shelters.
• Provides HIV testing and prevention counseling.
• Administers the federal Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) that assists pregnant and
breastfeeding women, new mothers, infants, and children up to the age of
five who have a low or moderate income, are at nutrition risk, and who live
in Florida. This may include homeless women and children. WIC provides
healthy foods, nutrition education and counseling, breastfeeding support,
and referrals for health care at no cost to eligible persons.
• Administers the Healthy Start initiative that provides for universal risk
screening of all Florida's pregnant women and newborn infants to identify
those at risk of poor birth, health and developmental outcomes. Children
and Families determines eligibility.
• Assists homeless families by explaining the application and eligibility
process for the Florida KidCare program that provides health insurance for
children from birth through age 18 who do not have insurance. Children
and Families determines eligibility.
• Administers the Homeless Children Nutrition Program provides cash
reimbursement for certain meals and snacks served to children living in
temporary residential settings.
• Provides transportation services to people whose physical or mental
disability, income status, or age makes them unable to transport
themselves or to purchase transportation.
Workforce Innovation
• Provides services to job seekers through the One-Stop delivery system,
including job training, education, and employment options and integrates
several services provided by co-located agencies, such as the Welfare-to-
Work, TANF, and Food Stamp programs.
Source: Governor’s Commission on the Homeless Final Report for 2001 and OPPAGA analysis.
15

OPPAGA Report Report No. 05-01
Appendix D
Jeb Bush
Governor
Lucy D. Hadi
Secretary
December 30, 2004
Mr. Gary VanLandingham
Interim Director
Office of Program Policy Analysis and
Government Accountability
111 West Madison Street, Room 312
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1475
Dear Mr. VanLandingham:
The department has reviewed the preliminary findings and conclusions in your report
on the Economic Impact of Homelessness. The department concurs with the findings
and conclusions, including the recommendations to improve services to the homeless
by state and local entities.
The Office on Homelessness will continue to provide technical assistance to local
continuums of care by encouraging them to apply for HUD funding and assisting
them in meeting the necessary criteria for acquiring federal grant awards. Our office
will also continue our efforts to help homeless individuals acquire assistance from
mainstream programs. Workshops to address barriers posed by these programs will
be held during the first quarter of 2005. We have made changes to our 2005 grant
agreement to require sub-grantees to participate in a computerized information
system to help maximize resources by integrating services and sharing information.
Additionally, the Office of Homelessness will support the work of the Council on
Homelessness as they develop discharge planning procedures within state agencies
to reduce the risk of people leaving state services and facilities from becoming
homeless.
The department wishes to express our appreciation to the research team for this
report. The cooperative working relationship with our Office on Homelessness was
appreciated, and allowed for continuous input to the report's findings.
Sincerely,
/s/
Lucy D. Hadi
Secretary
1317 Winewood Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Department of Children and Families is committed to working in partnership with local
communities to ensure safety, well-being and self-sufficiency for the people we serve.
16

Page 265 of 289

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Page 266 of 289

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
The e-Advocate Quarterly
Page 267 of 289

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals
I
The ComeUnity ReEngineering
Project Initiative
Q-1 2015
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015
III
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (PA)
Q-3 2015
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016
VI
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (NJ)
Q-2 2016
VII Youth Court Q-3 2016
VIII
The Economic Consequences of Legal
Decision-Making
Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017
X
The Theological Foundations of
US Law & Government
Q-2 2017
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017
XII
The EB-5 Investor
Immigration Project*
Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018
XIV
The Juvenile Justice
Legislative Reform Initiative
Q-2 2018
XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018
Page 268 of 289

XVI
for Drug-Free Communities
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (GA)
Q-4 2018
Page 269 of 289

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2
Vol. VI 2020 Missions
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020
XXIV
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative Project
Q-2 2020
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement
XXVII
The 21 st Century Charter Schools
Initiative
Q-1 2021
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021
XXX
XXXI
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
Domestic
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
International
Q-4 2021
Bonus
Page 270 of 289

Vol. VIII
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering
XXXII
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry
@ The Foundation
Q-1 2022
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022
XXXIV
The Theological Origins
of Contemporary Judicial Process
Q-3 2022
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023
XXXVIII
The Inner-Cities Strategic
Revitalization Initiative
Q-3 2023
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development
XXXVX
The Inner-City Strategic
Revitalization Plan
Q-1 2024
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025
Page 271 of 289

LI
Nonprofit Confidentiality
In The Age of Big Data
Q-3 2025
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America
LIII
American Poverty
In The New Millennium
Q-1 2026
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026
LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028
LXIV
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated
Service Approach to Delinquency
Prevention
Q-4 2028
Page 272 of 289

Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization
LXIV
LXV
LXVI
Part I – Strategic Housing
Revitalization
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational
Redevelopment
and Economic Empowerment
Part III - Financial Literacy
and Sustainability
Q-1 2029
Q-2 2029
Q-3 2029
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029
LXVIII
The Strategic Home Mortgage
Initiative
Bonus
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability
LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030
LXIX
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative
Q-2 2030
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus
Page 273 of 289

Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032
Page 274 of 289

The e-Advocate Monthly Review
2018
Transformational Problem Solving January 2018
The Advocacy Foundation February 2018
Opioid Initiative
Native-American Youth March 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018
Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Social Entrepreneurship June 2018
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in America S.Ed – June 2018
African-American Youth July 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Gang Deconstruction August 2018
Social Impact Investing September 2018
Opportunity Youth: October 2018
Disenfranchised Young People
The Economic Impact of Social November 2018
of Social Programs Development
Gun Control December 2018
2019
The U.S. Stock Market January 2019
Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019
Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019
Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019
Page 275 of 289

African-American Youth in The May 2019
Juvenile Justice System
Racial Profiling June 2019
Mass Collaboration July 2019
Concentrated Poverty August 2019
De-Industrialization September 2019
Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019
Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019
The Gift of Adversity December 2019
2020
The Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020
The Gift of Introspection February 2020
The Gift of Introversion March 2020
The Gift of Spirituality April 2020
The Gift of Transformation May 2020
…
Page 276 of 289

The e-Advocate Quarterly
Special Editions
Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017
Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017
Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017
The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018
Issues in Pain Management
The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018
The Drug Culture in the U.S.
The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018
Drug Abuse Among Veterans
The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018
Drug Abuse Among America’s
Teens
The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018
Alcoholism
The Economic Consequences of June 2018
Homelessness in The US
The Economic Consequences of July 2018
Opioid Addiction in America
Page 277 of 289

The e-Advocate Journal
of Theological Jurisprudence
Vol. I - 2017
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation
Vol. II - 2018
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform
& The Uniform Commercial Code
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence
Page 278 of 289

Legal Missions International
Page 279 of 289

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015
I
II
God’s Will and The 21 st Century
Democratic Process
The Community
Engagement Strategy
Q-1 2015
Q-2 2015
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015
IV
Public Interest Law
in The New Millennium
Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017
IX India Q-1 2017
X Suriname Q-2 2017
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018
Page 280 of 289

Vol. V 2019
XVII Russia Q-1 2019
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019
Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. VI 2020
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020
XX Israel Bonus
Vol. VII 2021
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021
XXII Peru Q-2 2021
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021
XXIV China Q-4 2021
XXV Japan Bonus
Vol VIII 2022
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022
Page 281 of 289

The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report
______
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency
Page 282 of 289

The e-Advocate Newsletter
Genesis of The Problem
Family Structure
Societal Influences
Evidence-Based Programming
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values
Philosophy/Application & Practice
Expungement & Pardons
Pardons & Clemency
Examples/Best Practices
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US
The Economics of Prison Enterprise
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal
The Fourth Amendment Project
The Sixth Amendment Project
The Eighth Amendment Project
The Adolescent Law Group
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium
Page 283 of 289

2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative
2017 - Organizational Development
The Board of Directors
The Inner Circle
Staff & Management
Succession Planning
Bonus #1 The Budget
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation
2018 - Sustainability
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process
The Quality Assurance Initiative
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative
The Community Engagement Strategy
2019 - Collaboration
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
International Labor Relations
Immigration
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process
The Community Engagement Strategy
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative
2020 - Community Engagement
Page 284 of 289

Extras
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process
The Board of Directors
The Gladiator Mentality
Strategic Planning
Fundraising
501(c)(3) Reinstatements
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters
How You Think Is Everything
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships
Accelerate Your Professional Development
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing
Assessing The Risks
Page 285 of 289

Page 286 of 289

About The Author
John C (Jack) Johnson III
Founder & CEO
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental
Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been
expanded to include a three-tier mission.
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide
300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and
chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit
corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;
Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of
Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our
Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill
Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;
Church Trustee.
Page 287 of 289

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Page 288 of 289

Page 289 of 289