Editorial

Every January, the US endeavors to count all of the individuals experiencing homelessness on a given night (General Definition of Homeless Individual, 1987). Local agencies called Continuums of Care tally up everyone residing in emergency shelters and transitional housing within their service areas, and send out volunteers to document people sheltering in cars or tents and other places “not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings” (42 USC § 11302). Last year, more than 580,000 people were experiencing homelessness according to this count—a record high (National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), 2023). And yet this number is almost certainly an underestimate (people experiencing unsheltered homelessness might reasonably prefer to avoid public detection). Neither does it recognize forms of severe housing insecurity that might be considered homelessness under another definition (such as doubling up or sleeping in a motel). In countries around the world, there is much to learn about who experiences homelessness, in what way, and how best to serve them. As we embark on a new year of enumerating and fighting homelessness, this focus issue of Housing Policy Debate gathers nine articles shedding light on these efforts.

The issue can be split roughly into two halves, beginning with a set of articles that try to better understand the experience of homelessness. Molly K. Richard, Julie Dworkin, Katherine Grace Rule, Suniya Farooqui, Zachary Glendening, and Sam Carlson launch this half with “Quantifying Doubled-Up Homelessness,” which proposes a method for identifying US residents who share a residence with others as a result of hardship or housing loss. While doubling up is sometimes framed as a private safety net and evidence of social bonds, Richard and colleagues cite research underlining the cost to families and especially children in terms of conflict, stress, informality, and instability. Their analysis estimates that about 3.7 million people experienced doubled-up homelessness in the US in 2019. Interestingly, certain geographies and racial and ethnic groups experienced high rates of doubling up but low rates of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, while others experienced high rates of both.

Christopher Giamarino, Evelyn Blumenberg, and Madeline Brozen explore another form of homelessness in “Who Lives in Vehicles and Why? Understanding Vehicular Homelessness in Los Angeles.” They draw on a large local survey to show that people living in vehicles tend to have different characteristics than those living in tents or on the street—they are more likely to be women, to include families with children, to be employed or seeking employment, and to be newly unhoused. They were comparatively “better off” than their unsheltered peers, yet their ability to exit homelessness was compromised by the struggle to find safe and legal places to park, cook, and take showers. The authors recommend improving and expanding safe parking programs to assist this distinctive group.

Two other articles leave the US to understand homelessness in other contexts. Sandeep K. Agrawal and Celine Zoe, in “Housing and Homelessness in Indigenous Communities of Canada’s North,” take us to the remote region of Tłįchǫ, where they interview more than 60 local officials, tribal leaders, elders, and residents to understand the roots of severe, chronic homelessness observed among native residents there. Uncovering factors such as the high cost of utilities and favoritism in the distribution of scarce public housing resources, the authors present clear policy recommendations. José Juan Vázquez and Sonia Panadero next transport us to Europe with “Income and State Benefits for Women Living in Homelessness in Madrid, Spain.” Interviews with 136 women living in homeless shelters in the city found that many did not receive state benefits, though they were eligible. Those who did receive them were more likely to report a disability, and had spent more time living homeless; their benefits were too meager to allow them to access housing in one of the most expensive cities in Spain.

The second half of the issue takes a closer look at programs and services designed to help people exit homelessness in the US. Emmy Tiderington, Robin Petering, Minda Huang, Taylor Harris, and Jack Tsai give us “Expert Perspectives on Service User Transitions Within and From Homeless Service Programs,” which suggests best practices for providers when helping clients move from intensive to less intensive homeless services. Michelle Ballan, Molly Freyer, and Meghan Romanelli, in “Supporting the Housing Needs of Domestic Violence Shelter Residents,” give these considerations a harder edge by considering a group with unique needs: survivors of intimate partner violence who have disabilities. Their comparison of shelter stays, exits, employment, and access to childcare for domestic violence shelter residents with and without disabilities informs recommendations to help this group access long-term housing.

Three more articles focus particularly on permanent supportive housing (PSH) programs. “Supportive Housing for Sexual and Gender Minority Individuals with Criminal Justice Histories,” by Alex R. Dopp, Sean McKenna, Marylou Gilbert, and Sarah B. Hunter, draws on interviews with both providers and clients in Los Angeles County, CA to study how PSH can overcome the compounding barriers created by marginalized identities and criminal justice involvement. Next, “Developing an Implementation Typology of Moving On Initiatives,” by Emmy Tiderington, Amanda Aykanian, and Daniel Herman, finds wide variation in the way PSH providers help their clients “move on” to housing that is in the private market or subsidized by mainstream public programs. Lastly, Evan S. Cole, Mara A. G. Hollander, Molly Ennis, Julie M. Donohue, A. Everette James, and Eric T. Roberts turn to the impact of PSH exits on healthcare costs in their article, titled “Do Medicaid Expenditures Increase After Adults Exit Permanent Supportive Housing?” They find evidence that PSH clients in Pennsylvania sustain lower Medicaid bills even after leaving supportive housing, although “more research is needed to understand whether these reductions in expenditures…do not reflect underuse of care that may be important for managing health over the long term.”

The research in this issue augments our understanding of homelessness in important ways, and in every case points to opportunities to expand, reform, or better target solutions. It adds to a rich literature in Housing Policy Debate and beyond, which is continually growing. We look forward to including newly published inquiries—for instance on the relationship between homelessness and evictions, and between homelessness and federal housing assistance programs—in future issues.