In late September 2021 a fire broke out in the middle of a homeless camp in Seattle’s Ballard neighborhood. Two months later, firefighters responded to another blaze in the same location. The fires, crime, and unsanitary conditions occupying a public park sparked concerns from neighborhood watch groups, homeless activists, and politicians about the rise of homelessness across much of western Washington. Calls for action ultimately led to the park’s temporary closure; however, homelessness continues to be an issue in many of the surrounding areas. The Ballard Commons is one example of the challenge faced by policymakers tasked with resolving the region’s homeless crisis, but also mirrors the issues faced by other states. This essay attempts to answer the underlying causes of homelessness and identify the most effective policy for reducing Washington’s unhoused population.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 50% of the nation’s homeless are found in just four states: California, New York, Florida, and Washington (De Sousa et al, 2022, p. 16). Furthermore, the Washington Department of Health (WDOH, 2018) reported that while rates of homelessness broadly declined from 2005 to 2013, Washington’s homeless population increased for much of the next five years (p. 191). Unsurprisingly, the continued prevalence of homelessness and incidents such as those mentioned in the Ballard Commons, have resulted in a great deal of public concern. In a 2023 survey, the Washington Department of Commerce (WDOC, 2023) reported that housing costs and homelessness were the most important issues facing lawmakers, with each capturing 40% of the vote respectively. Nonetheless, setting policy has not been without controversy for the Governor, the state legislature, nor the Department of Commerce who is principally responsible for enacting policy.
Homelessness is a contentious issue in part because it is both highly visible and poorly understood. Are homeless people lazy, drug-addicted, criminals. Or are they victims of systemic issues beyond their control. In fact, it’s a combination of all of the above. As sociologist Talmadge Wrigt (2000) says, homelessness is not one dimensional. It’s a combination of mental health, substance abuse, and structural factors (p. 30). Other studies echo such conclusions. For example, researchers Lee et al (2010) cite studies suggesting mental illness affects 30%-40% of all homeless people, and that those people are more likely to abuse substances (p. 506). They add, however, that rates of homelessness are highest where affordable housing is at its lowest (p. 509). Similar conclusions were drawn by a 2023 California survey that found 32% of all people surveyed had entered homelessness from a stable living situation. Of those, 58% cited lost income as the primary cause of their becoming homeless, and 63% cited domestic violence, overcrowding, or other conflicts as contributing to their circumstance (Kushel & Moore, 2023, pp.33-40). Such findings suggest that mental illness, substance abuse, and housing are core components of homelessness, but to view them as strictly causal would be incorrect. Instead, the research indicates that homelessness can result from one or a combination of multiple factors.
Any discussion of how to treat homelessness must include a review of existing policies. For example, Washington’s Rapid Capital Acquisition Program uses state funds to purchase hotels and apartment buildings for use as affordable housing (OFM, 2024 p. 17). Similarly, the 1811 Eastlake Housing First Program provides housing to homeless individuals with serious mental and alcohol abuse issues (Larimer et al, 2009 p. 1350). California’s Senate Bill 1380 restricts landlord’s ability to screen applicants based on poor credit, sobriety, or criminal convictions, and requires landlords to accept referrals directly from shelters, street outreach, and other programs (CA.gov, 2016). Subsidies are another approach. Oregon’s Health Authority State Rental Assistance program, for example, offers $500 monthly allowances for qualified recipients (Shroder & Matuga, 2018, p. 58). Additionally, Portland’s Tax Increment Financing program funds affordable housing projects around the Portland metro area (PHB, 2022, pp. 2-3). Alternatively, some states seek to focus on the highest risk individuals. For example, in 2022, New Hampshire launched their Critical Time Intervention program which focuses on reintegrating individuals discharged from psychiatric institutions (DHHS.NH.gov, 2022). Finally, Florida takes a more individualized approach as outlined by their Rapid Rehousing Initiative. Under this plan, local representatives focus on the specific needs of the individual with the goal of transitioning them out of state-sponsored housing as quickly as possible (FL.us, 2023). As this brief review of the literature shows, approaches to homelessness are varied, but all focus on housing as a primary means of addressing both costs, addiction, and stability.
Housing programs are not only popular among states, but they can also produce real financial incentives. For example, Washington’s 1811 Eastlake program was reported to have been 53% more cost effective than incarceration or inaction (Larimer et al, 2009 pp. 1353-1354). Nonetheless, such approaches are not without drawbacks. The asymmetrical distribution of homelessness around urban centers raises questions over who should pay for a relatively localized problem. Furthermore, affordable housing projects, such as Washington’s Rapid Capital Acquisition program might be broadly supported but rejected by individual communities. Political Scientists Simon et al (2019) refer to such public resistance as NIMBY movements or, not in my backyard. People may support affordable housing, for example, but only so long as it’s not built near them. Still, academics suggest that middle, upper and affordable housing are not mutually exclusive. For example, Talmadge Wright (2000) suggests that such mixed housing could be built without compromising the quality of life for all involved (p. 40). Whatever the approach, affordable housing is among the most popular policies enacted by lawmakers across multiple states.
Other options include raising state (and federal) minimum wages. Washington state, for example, instituted a $16 per hour minimum wage as of 2024, over twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25. While such measures provide real benefit to the workers, they draw strong criticism from businesses, who argue that raising the cost of employment will force them to layoff workers. Such debates are described, in part, by political systems theory. Under such a paradigm an issue’s social, economic, and cultural context shape policy, specifically when confronting public opinion and interest group pressure (Kraft & Furlong, 2019 p. 81). As demonstrated, the minimum wage agenda experienced both supporting and opposing pressure from public and special interests.
Finally, criminalization or forced relocation are policies that have received strong criticism from activist groups such as the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance (WLHA, n.d.), who argue such programs disrupt the sole source stability homeless people have. However, such policies can enjoy public support from communities who simply want a problem dealt with. In fact, the more attention the public pays to a particular problem, the more difficult it will be for special interest groups to influence the outcome (Dur & De Bièvre, 2007, p. 7). This can be challenging for advocacy groups who face mounting public concern over a highly visible problem. Furthermore, defining success can be difficult. Harvard lecturer Matt Andrews (2022) notes that achieving success involves much more than reaching in-program goals (p. 2). While such views may seem to reduce accountability, consider whether relocation without shelter addresses the underlying issues of housing affordability, substance abuse, and mental health. The goals of such programs might be obtained, but the broader social concern is unresolved. Similarly, affordable housing may provide a long-term solution without addressing the immediate concerns of the public. It is essential, therefore, that policies include both housing, wage, health, and public considerations.
In summary, homelessness is a broadly structural and personal issue. Economic drivers such as the cost of housing, low wages, and unemployment are all issues Washington can address through better policy, however public considerations must be taken into account. As the data show, a coherent strategy of moving people out of public parks and into affordable housing is more cost effective than incarceration or inaction. At the same time, such programs must ensure adequate support for individuals suffering from substance abuse and mental illness, with the goal of enabling them to live productive lives.
References
Andrews, M. (2022). What is public policy success, especially in development. CID
Faculty Working Paper Series 2022.415, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37373278
CA.gov. (2016). SB-1380 homeless coordinating and financing council (2015-2016).
California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1380
DHHS.NH.gov. (2022). NH DHHS launches new community-oriented program to
support people after psychiatric hospitalization. New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/news-and-media/nh-dhhs-launches-new-community-oriented-program-support-people-after-psychiatric
De Sousa, T., Andrichik, A., Cuellar, M., Marson, J., Prestera, E., & Rush, K. (2022). The
2022 Annual homelessness assessment report (AHAR) to Congress. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2022-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
Dur, A.& de Bièvre. (2007). The question of interest group influence. Journal of Public
Policy, 27(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X07000591
FL.us. (2023). The 2023 Florida statutes (including special session C). Online Sunshine.
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2019). Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives
(7th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781544374598
Kushel, M. & Moore, T. (2023). Toward a new understanding: The California statewide
study of people experiencing homelessness. University of California San Francisco. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2023-06/CASPEH_Report_62023.pdf
Larimer, M. E., Malone, D. K., Garner, M. D., Atkins, D.C., Burlingham, B., Lonczak,
H.S., Tanzer, K., Ginzler, J., Clifasefi, S.L., Hobson, W.G., & Marlatt, G.A. (2009). Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. American Medical Association, 301(13). 1349-1357. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/183666
Lee, B., Tyler, K., & Wright, J.D. (2010). The new homelessness revisited. Annual
Review of Sociology, 36, 501-521. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25735089
OFM. (2024). Proposed 2023-25: Budget and policy highlights. Office of Financial
PHB. (2022). Portland housing bureau’s 2022 metro bond + TIF opportunity solicitation.
Portland Housing Bureau. https://www.portland.gov/phb/documents/metro-bond-tif-opportunity-solicitation-m-bos-fall-2022/download
Shroder, M. D. & Matuga, M. P. (Eds.). (2018). The housing-health connection.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 20(2). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol20num2/Cityscape-July_2018.pdf
Simon, C.A., Steel, B.S., Lovrich, N.P. (2019). State and local government and politics.
Oregon State University. https://open.oregonstate.education/government/
WDOC. (2023). State survey: Most people say housing is #1 issue. Washington State
Department of Commerce. https://www.commerce.wa.gov/news/state-survey-most-people-say-housing-is-1-issue/
WDOH. (2018). Washington State Health Assessment. Washington State Department of
Health. https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Documents/1000/2018SHA_FullReport.pdf
WLHA. (n.d.). Toolkit to combat the criminalization of homelessness. Washington Low
Income Housing Alliance. https://www.wliha.org/sites/default/files/toolkit.pdf
Wright, T. (2000). Resisting homelessness: Global, national, and local solutions.
Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), 27-43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2654929