Top 5 Homelessness Controversies

by Shannon Moriarty

Published October 06, 2008 @ 12:37PM PT

In 30 years, we have seen America's homeless population skyrocket, the face of the population change, new models emerge for dealing with the issue, and communities adopt new tactics for controlling the homeless population. With so many changes in such a short time dealing with such a complex issue, there are bound to be disagreements. Understanding these core controversies is absolutely critical to understanding the hurdles that must be cleared to effectively end homeless people's plight in America.

1. The Complex Causes of Homelessness

Homelessness is a social issue stemming from political, economic and social factors that are often outside the control of those experiencing it. Many of those who become homeless are the victims of vast systemic problems, such as a lack of affordable housing, the high costs of health care, and unlivable wages.

Although the US is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, the unfortunate reality is that majority of Americans - 58.5% - will spend at least one year of their lives living below the poverty line. For many, all it takes is the perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances - such as a personal crisis or a poor life decision - combined with a lack of a personal support system to provide the final push into homelessness.

Despite the overwhelming research proving otherwise, 85% of Americans wrongly perceive homelessness to be the only result of individual failings, such as addiction, laziness, or criminal behavior. This overly simplistic interpretation of homelessness fuels discrimination, criminalization, and hinders progress towards addressing the root causes of poverty and homelessness in the United States.

Understanding the root causes of homelessness is critical, as they must be identified in order to apply appropriate solutions to end homelessness.

2. Criminalizing the Homeless

The demand for shelter is increasing, and cities are having difficulty meeting the need. 52% of US cities reported having to turn away people requesting shelter some or all of the time. In an effort to control the people forced to live in public places, an increasing number of cities have started looking to the criminal justice system. Laws and ordinances targeting homeless people are meant to make cities cleaner and safer. Often, these laws are veiled as inner city revitalization or efforts to make city streets more family-friendly.

Criminalization of the homeless takes many forms, including restrictions on panhandling, sweeps of cities areas inhabited by homeless people, and legislation making it illegal to sleep or sit in public areas, often resulting in criminal penalty for violating these laws. In Cincinnati, panhandling without a permit is considered improper solicitation. In Atlanta, the mayor issued an executive order prohibiting feeding homeless people in parks or in public. In

Advocates argue that such laws do little more than hide the problem of homelessness from public view. Rather than enforcing inhumane legislation, advocates argue, cities should focus on constructive alternatives to address the underlying causes homelessness.

3. Creating More Affordable Housing

Homeless advocates believe that in order to combat homelessness, cities must develop more affordable housing. Affordable housing often comes in the form of rental units within the financial mean of those in the lower income ranges of a geographical area.

Although federal funding for affordable housing has decreased dramatically over the past decade, local communities are finding new strategies for responding to the needs of low-income households. State and local housing trust funds, for example, leverage resources to increase the supply of affordable housing units. Other cities and counties have developed inclusionary zoning programs requiring developers to include affordable when creating new developments.

Although city and county officials recognize the need for affordable housing, efforts to develop affordable housing units are often met with local, NIMBY (not in my backyard) opposition.  Thus, localized efforts to develop affordable housing units at the local level often become contentious political battles. Opponents often argue that affordable housing development hinders revitalization efforts by negatively impacting property values and creates a burden on city/town infrastructure, social services, and schools. 

4. Defining "Homeless"

"At a time when Americans are dealing with rising food and fuel prices, slowing jobs and soaring home foreclosures, is it really possible that homelessness is on the decline? Perhaps, but it depends on your meaning of the word homeless," according to a recent Time Magazine article.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently reported to Congress that homeless is down 12% from 2005 to 2007 to 672,000 people. There is a "large asterisk" next to these numbers, however, since they do not include those individuals living in motels, cars, or "doubled up" with families and friends. In the past, these populations have been included in HUD counts. Today, they are not.

Many advocates believe the federal definition of homeless should be expanded to include families and children who are "doubled up" with families or friends in often overcrowded, unsafe living conditions or living in motels. While it is difficult to estimate how many homeless people currently live in these conditions, advocates argue that the number is huge. In rural areas, for example, shelters do not even exist.

So why keep these vulnerable families and individuals out of the count? Opponents of expanding the federal definition believe that the problem must seem surmountable in order to muster the support needed to tackle the problem. "There's a very large housing problem in this country," said Dennis Culhane, author of the HUD report. "But shoehorning new people into the homeless category isn't going to make a hill of beans of difference. It's only going to dilute what we're doing."

5. Shelters or housing?

Homeless providers are having trouble keeping up with the increased demand for services. 52% of US cities reported having to turn away people requesting shelter some or all of the time. In response to the growing need, some communities are creating new emergency shelters to provide services to those vulnerable individuals in need of urgent support.

Many homeless advocates believe that constructing new shelters in response to an increase in demand is a feeble response. This approach simply manages homelessness without ending it. They argue that resources should be directed towards developing housing and providing case management rather than constructing new shelters.

Research indicates that these advocates are onto something: permanent supportive housing programs have proven to be cheaper and more effective than shelter alone. Chronically homeless individuals were costing between $35,000-$150,000 per person in care annually. However, in a program utilizing a housing first approach, that cost drops to $13,000-$25,000.

While advocates at both the local and national levels continue to push for investment in permanent supportive housing, some government officials have been slow to fully embrace this approach (Why? See Controversy #3.).