Draining a flooded bathtub: a qualitative analysis of Built for Zero implementation during COVID-19

ABSTRACT

Built for Zero (BFZ) is a data-driven approach being adopted by homeless systems in some Anglo countries to allocate permanent housing assistance. BFZ was created and promoted by Community Solutions – a nonprofit advocacy group based in the USA – as an evidence-based way to end homelessness. Despite its growing popularity amongst policymakers, few academic studies have analyzed BFZ implementation. This paper fills that knowledge gap with interviews conducted with 28 US homeless systems. My data analysis answers the following questions: What were the barriers to and enablers of BFZ implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic? How did managerial staff navigate these barriers and exploit these opportunities? What are the ethical implications of these strategies? I demonstrate government responses to COVID-19 facilitated entries into and hindered exits from homeless systems, BFZ communities experimented with risky interventions during the pandemic that have not been systematically tested, and homeless systems need additional resources to equitably implement BFZ.

KEYWORDS:

• Built for zero
• homelessness
• systems theory
• governance
• COVID-19
• coordinated entry

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Declarations

I would like to thank the participants who contributed their time to this research and the anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments on this paper.

Availability of data and material

Masked data is available upon request.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. A person experiences chronic homelessness if they live with a disability in a place not meant for human habitation, a safe haven, or in an emergency shelter continuously for at least twelve months or on at least four separate occasions in the last three years, as long as the combined occasions equal at least twelve months (Federal Register, 2015).

2. Local organizations that do not receive HUD funding can withhold resources from CoC members.

3. I cannot provide a real-world example of BFZ communities using the BNL to make program referrals, identify leverage points, and balance feedback loops because such studies do not currently exist. Grainger (Grainger, 2022a, 2022b) offer the best examples from a non-BFZ community that was using BFZ methodology to allocate permanent housing assistance.

4. Benfer et al. (2022) show states like Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland banned eviction for nearly one-year.

5. Hepburn et al. (2023) show cities like Austin, Minneapolis, New York, Richmond, Philadelphia, and Boston banned evictions for an extended period of time and as a result had lower eviction rates than cities that allowed them to continue.

6. The term “Section 8” is commonly used to refer to Housing Choice Vouchers. This is the primary way federal authorities subsidize renters.

7. These respondents explicitly described ways they jet chronically homeless clients from their system. I assume that the remaining CoCs in the study do the same because everyone stated that they lacked enough PSH to end chronic homelessness. That said, two participants said service providers in their CoC creamed low acuity clients from the BNL, thereby leaving chronically homeless individuals on the street.

Additional information

Funding

The author reports this research was financially supported with a small grant (i.e., Early Career Research Support Fund) that was provided by the University of Glasgow.

Notes on contributors

Garrett L. Grainger

Dr. Garrett L. Grainger is an urban sociologist who has published research on homeless governance in specialist and non-specialist academic journals. He can be reached at [email protected].