Social Science and Public Policy

The Future of Homelessness

Ralph S. Hambrick, Jr. and Gary T. Johnson

T he past decade has made clear that homelessness is not simply a passing phenomenon requiring heroic volunteer efforts on the part of a few until the temporary crisis passes. Yet that has been the predomi- nant response to the problem. Both politically and pro- grammatically, and both in the individual case and at the social problem level, the tendency has been to view the issue as a temporary phenomenon. The temptation is to think: "If we can just get through...things will get back to normal." Many professionals working with the homelessness problem realize that it is necessary to turn the corner from a temporary, emergency re- sponse to a long-range strategy. Both social responsi- bility and realism require it.

This essay is based on interviews and observations in more than twenty cities and localities around the country and on the increasing literature and data about the homeless problem. The approach is a set of three scenarios presented in the present tense even though our time frame is 10 to 20 years hence. The scenarios are not intended to be mutually exclusive; parts of each could occur simultaneously. The scenarios, we think, are both plausible and thought-provoking. Some ele- ments assume no change in public policy; others are built around specific public policy interventions. Fol- lowing the scenarios we offer some commentary and inferences for public policy.

Simplified History of the Problem A simplified history of homelessness during the past

two decades helps provide a context for the scenarios. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, those working to provide housing and human services began to realize that more than the normal number of persons were living on the street without shelter. An emergency was perceived, and mobilization to respond to that emer- gency began. Additional shelters were organized and food kitchens put into operation. But it was still a prob- lem of concern to only a few with barely any aware- ness on the part of the general public and many public officials.

Increasingly though, awareness and sympathy grew and spread to a larger part of the population as women and children began to be seen both on the streets and in the shelters. In the mid to late 1980s, the problem was seen as a crisis of major propor- tions in many cities. The nuisance factor of panhan- dlers in tourist and retail districts and the sympathy factor for women and children on the street raised the visibility and political salience of the problem. Many mayors and other polit icians made strong promises to bring about a quick solution.

Despite visible efforts, the promise of a quick solu- tion to homelessness failed to be met in virtually ev- ery case. Mayors regretted their promises to end the crisis quickly and saw it outlive their terms of office. Instead, the problem continued, even increased, and frustration began to grow. What social workers fre- quently refer to as "compassion fatigue" began to set in. Interest waned and homelessness lost its status as

THE FUTURE OF HOMELESSNESS / 29

a hot problem; in some places it has became a nega- tive political issue.

Concurrently with the rise of homelessness, devo- lution of major federal programs to state and local governments was occurring. Consequently and ironi- cally, even though federal funding for homelessness programs increased after the passage of the Stewart B. McKinney Act in 1987, there has been a system- atic decline in other social programs, including hous- ing, social services, employment and training, and more.

In the meantime, non-profit organizations contin- ued to try to respond to the problem, as did some governmental agencies. Efforts to provide emergency shelter increased and become institutionalized; tran- sitional housing programs sprang up; a few "preven- tion" programs were tried. Meanwhile, the homeless, including homeless families, became a sub-plot in movies, TV shows, and even comic strips.

While the robust economy of the last several years has helped, the magnitude of the problem remains. In terms of making a meaningful impact on the number of homeless, the history largely has been one of fail- ure and frustration. Still, there are indications that a more systemic response may be in the formative stage.

Homelessness Routinized As we consider the shape the homelessness prob-

lem might take ten to twenty years from now, three divergent scenarios emerge. In Scenario l: Homeless- ness Routinized, homelessness becomes a routine part of the social and political landscape. Scenario 2: Homelessness No Longer a Problem suggests that change in economic and social conditions, as well as broad social policy change, may be required if a sig- nificant impact on homelessness is to be achieved. Scenario 3: The Homeless Problem Worsens, suggests a future in which homelessness as well as other mani- festations of poverty worsen as society increases in complexity and support systems are weakened. These scenarios provide commentary about the present as well as raise questions about the future. The seeds of each scenario exist in the present, yet none of the sce- narios are likely to occur as presented. By making them explicit, perhaps we can better design the public policy and social action needed to achieve a future we prefer.

Homelessness is no longer considered an unusual circumstance; it has become a routine part of the po- litical and social service landscape. An earthquake or hurr icane metaphor no longer appl ies because homelessness is no longer considered an emergency. Clearly, the expectation of a quick cure has long since

disappeared. Just as the "war on poverty" is no longer much of a war, homelessness is no longer considered much of an emergency. Based on best estimates, the percentage of the population experiencing homeless- ness is now somewhat greater than in 1990. The prob- lem has been institutionalized, but little has been done to solve it.

Indicators of the "normalization of homelessness" abound on the professional and institutional scene. Homelessness Services has become a specialization in most schools of social work. Students learn how to manage homelessness programs and services and how to work with the special needs of homeless individu- als and families. Coalitions of advocates have been a part of the response to the homelessness problem from the early 1980s. A new step was taken in 2001 with the creat ion of the International Associa t ion of Homelessness Professionals and Service Providers. It has just begun to take on a role in accrediting univer- sity homeless studies programs. The association has an active practitioner and academic wing and publishes a journal on homelessness. This is not the only jour- nal about homelessness; several other journals have the word homeless in their title. Almost every city or county has a department or division of homelessness services. The emphasis in these programs is primarily on providing services to those who are homeless. Rhetoric about eliminating homelessness--a rhetoric that at one time was quite common-- is seldom heard.

Health outreach and clinics targeted to the home- less are well established. At an earlier time it was the radical physician who was willing to go to the streets and work with the homeless. Now such positions are advertised and competed for. Mainstream services are more in tune with the homeless population than they had been. The current equivalent of Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Social Security Insurance (SSI), and General Assistance (GA) checks, for ex- ample, are routinely mailed to shelter addresses. Tech- nology has been brought into the picture. Voice mail and Internet services for the homeless are widely pro- vided, purportedly for assisting in job searches, but they are used for many purposes. Most large depart- ments of recreation and parks have a homelessness specialist on staff. Many school systems have a homelessness liaison specialist.

It is widely accepted that some of those who are homeless are not willing to live in a rule-bound set- ting. They reject shelters and other services as too re- strictive. Constrained by legal rulings, authorities have been unable or unwilling to force them to do so. All major cities have established street support teams and

30 I SOCIETY �9 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 1998

designated encampment areas, although encampment boundaries are not fully respected. These teams pro- vide medical assistance, food, counseling, clothing, and recreation. Electricity has been made available in some of them. A homeless individual who lives on the street and has free electricity and a portable TV is a strange sight by older standards. Some advocates ar- gued that mail should be delivered to persons living under bridges and in "cardboard villages," but the idea did not receive much support in the political com- munity and it quietly died. Linguists have begun to study the new language patterns developing in this subculture.

The Bureau of the Census had struggled with how to treat the homeless population in preparing for the 2010 census of the population. Should a separate cat- egory be developed? Should shelter addresses be used? Should a "shelter" housing category be created? The decision finally was to build techniques for counting the homeless into the normal decennial count rather than carry out a special count as had been done in the past. Just as it is considered acceptable that a certain portion of the population is unemployed, so it is ac- ceptable that a certain percent be homeless. The fig- ure of 1% homeless has begun to take on the same status as 5% unemployed. As long as the number is kept roughly at that level, it is acceptable.

The Department of Housing, Urban Development, and Homeless Services (HUDHS, formerly HUD) has created a new "system" of housing support focused on homelessness because other programs were not considered effective in responding to the problem. Being homeless has virtually become a necessary con- dition for receiving housing assistance. Despite these innovations, the amount of subsidized housing has increased very little and the pattern for many of those who use it is to rotate through, not to permanent mar- ket-based housing, but back to the shelter, the street, or doubled-up. Many "recycled people," as they are sometimes called, have gone through the shelter to transitional housing to subsidized housing multiple times.

Because of the establishment of national standards, the character and quality of shelters and transitional housing no longer vary as much as they once did. At one time, shelters varied tremendously from one com- munity to the next and even within the same commu- nity. Some shelters were relatively spacious, provided private quarters, had quality common space, and of- fered better services than those available outside the shelter. Others had institutionalized the "deprived look" and were crowded, sometimes with wall-to-wall

beds. Some shelters split up couples; in others they were allowed to stay together in private quarters or in a group setting. HUDHS established national standards for these facilities and makes funding contingent upon meeting them. Physical facility requirements and rules of operation are included. One of the issues raised by the National Association of Shelter Managers, though, is the purported lax enforcement of these standards. Still, the quality and degree of uniformity is much greater than it once was. In most major cities, state- of-the-art technology for shelter reservations and check-in has been developed.

Attention has not been limited strictly to services for those who are already homeless. Specific target- ing to prevent those who are housed from losing that housing has received attention from time to time. This widespread effort is intended to create mechanisms to intervene in eviction and other immediate causes of homelessness. There are many varying state and local programs around the country. This approach has its fiscal frugality mot ivat ion-- i t is cheaper to keep people in housing than to respond to them after they are out. The careful targeting of prevention dollars grows out of concern that resources not be given to those who might maintain housing without help. And the prevention effort also has a humanitarian motiva- t i o n - i t is better to prevent the agony of losing hous- ing from occurring than finding housing after enduring the loss.

Two basic approaches have developed. Strategy A is brinkmanship, a form of targeting. Those providing housing subsidy, mostly rental assistance, wait until it is clear that a household will lose housing if nothing is done. This usually means the legal eviction process is well underway, even near a conclusion. Interven- tion in the form of legal assistance and rental subsidy is provided, hopefully in time to prevent eviction from actually occurring. Strategy B is prediction. Very so- phisticated systems for attempting to predict which families would become homeless if nothing is done have been developed. The most commonly used is the Homelessness Likelihood Index (HoLI). It is based on a series of household indicators and a formula that was tested for several years. It reportedly can predict housing loss with 85 percent accuracy.

The gamesmanship, efforts to "beat the system," by persons seeking the homeless prevention subsidy have gotten relatively sophisticated in localities with both the brinkmanship and prediction approaches. Many cases have been reported of tenants and land- lords colluding to make it appear that eviction is im- minent. Similarly, since subsidy and services are keyed

THE FUTURE OF HOMELESSNESS I 31

to the HoLI, many low-income households take steps to move their rating on the index. For example, num- ber of consecutive nights in a shelter is one of the in- dex components, so it has long been the case that many people have "done shelter time" just to boost their rat- ing for housing subsidy. Apologists argue that the will- ingness to voluntarily spend time in a shelter is itself a measure of need. Despite the efforts, these preven- tion programs seem to have made little perceptible impact on the problem.

Non-profit organizations have been principal play- ers responding to the homeless problem. Government funding is provided to non-profit organizations, but never enough to have a major impact. Most non-profit organizations rely on a combination of grants, both from government and foundations, and fundraising. The pattern largely has been a mosaic of programs; some excellent, but never gelling in a way that pro- vides a concerted, systematic attack on the problem. Competition is intense among the non-profits for fund- ing. The perception is that funding for these service organizations is virtually a zero-sum game. There even have been cases of "industrial sabotage," with one non- profit spying on another to determine its funding plans.

Efforts to coordinate among organizations have been mixed. Some cities have well functioning "ser- vice provider networks" or other mechanisms to bring about information sharing and cooperation, but in oth- ers intense competition and even antagonism divide the community. Even within the provider networks, competition is intense. One result of this intense com- petition has been the consolidation of services; the smaller non-profits of the past have gone the way of the "morn & pop" grocery stores.

Part of this competition is strong resistance to change. Service providers are fighting to hang onto their piece of turf. In effect, a homelessness industry has developed and efforts to change it are strongly resisted. The efforts to shift resources from emergency shelter to permanent housing, for example, have been rebuffed by provider coalitions in many cities. Al- though there are still some "old-timers" around, the homelessness industry is now managed by second and third "generation" providers.

The impact of non-profit competition on the home- lessness problem, as well as other social service ar- eas, has been mixed. In some communities, it has meant fewer providers and therefore unmet needs or few choices for homeless individuals and families. In other communities, it has meant increased specializa- tion among non-profit providers, each trying to find a niche where they could be most successful, resulting

in balkanized and fragmented responses to the prob- lem. In yet other communities, the quality of home- lessness services has increased as a result of the competition.

Efforts to keep the homeless out of sight or away from one's own business or residential area, or out of one's own town have been part of the response to the street homeless from the beginning. The tactics are not just fences to keep people from living in particu- lar spots; not just center "arm rests" on park benches that keep people from sleeping on them; not just stra- tegic water sprinkling. Some local planning depart- ments have specialists on their staffs who have been trained in "defensible space" urban design techniques. Such specialists work with local merchants in design- ing public spaces that are inhospitable to "vagrants" and other undesirable elements. These "harassment" efforts occur even while other groups are providing support that enables homeless persons to live more comfortably on the streets or in cardboard villages.

Police departments have played a major role in the implementation of prodding strategies. The primary role of the police is regular "sweeps" in which street homeless are picked up, given contact with social ser- vice, shelter, and housing service providers, and re- leased. Some take advantage of the services offered, but most simply find a new location only to be "swept" again. Virtually every individual attending police train- ing academies receive instruction in how to deal with the various segments of the homeless population, as well as those complaining about them.

Attorneys specialize on both sides of the issue. The trick for those in the pro-prodding camp has been to achieve results without violating constitutional rights. The Legal Aid attorneys who defend the homeless have, ironically, developed sophisticated legal argu- ments about the right to be homeless.

Some tension still characterizes the relations be- tween the homeless and other segments of society just as it marks the relations between other groups. For the most part, however, systems for "managing" the homelessness issue have been put in place. Indeed, the quality of homelessness management has become quite high.

Homelessness No Longer a Problem Homelessness has largely disappeared as an issue.

Ironically, scholars recently have turned attention to why homelessness has declined so greatly, rather than focusing on why it came about. In some ways it is even more of a puzzle than why homelessness bur- geoned as a problem in the 1980s. A variety of factors

32 / SOCIETY �9 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 1998

seem to account for the for tunate reduct ion in homelessness. Some are the result of policy changes while others are less clear. The most commonly ac- cepted hypothesis is that the decline of homelessness is a result of change in the underlying features of eco- nomic and social systems and the policy infrastruc- ture that supports them. Progress has been made in several underlying factors that had pushed homeless- ness, both among singles and families, to record lev- els in the 1990s. There also have been important changes in social policy.

One factor widely credited is the health of the economy during the past several decades and the cor- respondingly low unemployment rate. Some credit can be given to the new system of technical and vocational training developed and implemented early in the 21 st century. As a result, fewer people are being left be- hind as the workplace becomes more technically com- plex. The thirty-two hour workweek has been credited with more evenly distributing work opportunities. Some think that even more could have been accom- plished had the proposed limit of one and one-half jobs per person been passed. Opponents of the pro- posed legislation prevailed with the argument that it would be declared unconstitutional if it did pass. In any event, policy analysts could never develop a con- sensus about just what impact the one and a half job rule would have bad.

A way to value less skilled labor seems to have played an important role in the reduction of home- lessness and poverty in general. Many of the barriers to employing individuals for personal services were removed. Reversing the long trend of technology and complexity to push those with low educational level out of the work force, a comfortable co-existence seems to have developed. The trend for well-to-do individuals to use technology to improve their lifestyle has reversed somewhat. The well to do are increas- ingly likely to hire individuals to provide personal services. There has been a renaissance of personal ser- vice entrepreneurial activity including both the skilled and unskilled--from personal trainers to gutter clean- ers. The two-profession family has been a major con- tributor to this trend. A complementary development has been the substantial increase in the use of "temps" in almost every occupational category.

Welfare system reform has continued after a rocky start in the 1990s. Work requirements "worked." De- spite the faltering start, the incentives and the disci- pline brought about by the reforms and the policy efforts to create new and appropriate jobs and job sup- ports have made an impact. The perverse incentives

that once made it irrational for many people on wel- fare to take a job largely have been eliminated. Re- moving the link between health care coverage and jobs through the provision of universal health coverage has reinforced the changes in welfare practice. Welfare and employment programs are fully integrated. An application for any form of assistance is automatically an application for employment or ancillary services. These range from job training, to job search assistance, to child care support.

Another factor contributing to employment growth has been the dramatic expansion in public transporta- tion service. No longer are low-income inner city workers unable to reach emerging job opportunities on the urban fringe. This increased public transporta- tion service is the result of two factors: a recognition that the world's oil reserves are finally beginning to "play out" and the realization that an automobile-based society for a whole variety of reasons is simply not sustainable. Not only did the overall increase in pub- lic transportation benefit workers, but also careful plan- ning of transportation systems to connect home and work enhanced the effect.

The struggle with drug use is far from over, but a combination of increased social pressure and substan- tial increases in rehabilitation have produced a multi- year decline in addiction rates. Ironically, a key feature of drug rehabilitation has been "withdrawal drugs"- - prescription drugs that "undo" addictions. It was per- haps the deve lopment of withdrawal drugs that bolstered the political will to decriminalize recreational drug use. The decriminalization of most drugs did drop the bottom out of drug prices and resulted in a near elimination of illegal trafficking and the aggressive "marketing" it had spawned. After an initial upward spike, drug use among all socio-economic groups has steadily declined.

The birth rate among teens and others without the means to support children has also declined. Giving birth outside an enduring relationship is no longer as acceptable in either lower or middle-income popula- tions as it once was, Indeed, even within marriage children are less likely than in earlier times. This swing of the pendulum is not well understood, but it has had an impact on the structure of poverty. Some attribute it to the increase in self-indulgence on the part of the new generation. Child raising has been more widely perceived as a drag on lifestyle, even among the poor. Others credit the increase to the availability of effec- tive non-bothersome and "ego-protecting" contracep- tives for both males and females. The crackdown on parental responsibility made possible by new post-

THE FUTURE OF HOMELESSNESS / 33

DNA paternity identification is also a factor frequently cited.

Schooling changes seem to have had some impact on homelessness as well. Developing from the recog- nition that many children were not learning basic skills in the home, "life-skills" has become a widespread and regular part of the curriculum in schools. It be- gins in the now mandatory pre-kindergarten level and carries through high school, including general equiva- lency diploma (GED) classes. The life-skills curricu- lum covers everything from basic hygiene to funda- mental skills of money management in an increasingly cashless society to self-protection in a hostile social environment. While not as successful as originally hoped, programs to reduce school dropout rates have had an impact.

The incidence of mental illness has not subsided, but the "new institutionalization" has taken a firm foot- hold in the form of community-based supported hous- ing for special populations. Some of this supported housing is "transitional," but much of it is permanent. There is a continuum of supported housing with a wide range of support levels and expected length of stay. Very little housing has a hard time limit. The standard is to tailor the length of stay to the needs and desires of the individual. The NIMBY (not in my back yard) response to the variety of facilities for special popula- tions declined dramatically with the adoption of an amendment attached to all federal subsidy programs to state and local government prohibiting discrimina- tion in the location of special housing and service fa- cilities. The amendment was upheld in the one case to reach the Supreme Court. While residents still fight the location of such housing in their neighborhoods, the NIMBY dynamic has changed significantly.

Major shifts have occurred in social policy and those programs that focus on the homeless and very low- income. Some individuals and families still become homeless, but they receive "mainstream," not sepa- rate homeless services. The interesting feature is that many of the mainstream programs have features that were adapted from earlier homeless programs as well as from other policy and program innovations. The homelessness problem became so severe and seem- ingly intractable that it became the catalyst for the transformation of mainstream services. At the advent of the 21 st century, the accumulated efforts to respond to the homelessness problem and many other related problems of poverty took a new turn. Homelessness, in combination with the health care "crisis" became the catalyst for a whole new way of dealing with so- cial services/social policy. The homelessness service

system as it had evolved, provided a model for a broader social policy response to serving low-income and troubled individuals and families, which in turn helped the homelessness problem.

The model developed is comprehensive managed care. It has two key features. One is that a single ser- vice provider is the focal point for service. It follows the model of the physician who recommends/approves more specialized services. Second, the service is funded through a capitated system. Profit-making, non- profit, and public organizations compete for subscrib- ers. Services include mental health, health care, employment training, counseling, and child care. Per- formance measures are built in as a safeguard against poor or low level service. Housing, not shelters, is part of the service package.

The focal point in the new social policy resembles older versions of case management. Early case man- agement, however, was quite restricted. For one, case managers were restricted to a single service area or type of problem. More important, they had no real standing to command services. They were more knowl- edgeable than their clients were and had somewhat more "clout" with specific service providers, but ulti- mately had to rely on persuasion and the voluntary cooperation of providers. The current system is much more integrated and case managers have more author- ity to command services.

Some individuals and families find themselves with- out housing, but the ability to respond to them has improved considerably. Homelessness is now an en- try point into an integrated social service/housing sys- tem. Support services are part of a program of housing subsidy and employment training and assistance. Shel- ters, now called "first stop housing," have changed dramatically from the 1980s and early 1990s. The first change is the allowable length of stay. Rather than the days or weeks permitted previously, the length of stay is indeterminate, based on the need of the resident. Exit from first stop housing occurs when permanent housing is located, not when some predetermined time period has elapsed. In effect, emergency shelters have been collapsed into the best of the old transitional housing. Instead of the three-tier system, shelter, tran- sitional, and then permanent housing, the system has only two tiers: first stop and permanent. Second, the physical features of most first stop housing are much improved. It is now much like the best transitional housing in the 1990s, offering both private and com- mon space and providing facilities for job training and many other services on-site. Third, and perhaps most important, first stop housing now provides a system-

34 / SOCIETY �9 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 1998

atic means for entry to services. Health, alcohol and drug, employment and many other services are tied in. Entry into first stop housing includes entry into social services and both entitlement and non-entitle- ment programs. These services can be maintained as needed as the move to permanent housing is made.

First stop housing is available to those who are homeless, but it is also used by even more who are not. These are persons who need extensive assistance for whom a period of time in a community setting is considered desirable. A range and combination of ser- vices are provided that would be difficult to provide to dispersed housing locations.

Strides have been made in breaking down what many housing experts of the 1990s suggested were the barriers to an adequate supply of low-cost housing and thus one major cause of homelessness. There have been both advances in modular home construction techniques and increased flexibility integrated into building and zoning standards around the country, making modular housing a viable and lower cost al- ternative to stick built dwellings. Recent court rulings have decreased exclusionary practices, like large lot zoning, which previously characterized many subur- ban fringe areas and which housing experts argued drove up housing costs. New building codes and the relaxation of multiple occupancy restrictions have contributed.

Efforts have also been made through both tax laws and social policy to encourage continued homeowner- ship and housing development opportunities. The Fed- eral Reserve has been successful at preserving relatively low long-term interest rates, through its en- hanced handling of money supplies. All of these ef- forts have led to rather dramatic increases in the production of middle-class housing, increased turnover within the housing stock, and a more rapid trickling down of previously-owned homes to lower-income households.

A critical element in the low cost housing supply has been the widespread subsidy for housing. The criti- cal force in the development of this shift in policy was a lawsuit holding that the subsidy of homeownership through tax deductions (carefully labeled tax expen- ditures) disproportionately advantaged the well off and resulted in "unequal protection of the law" for those with low incomes. The suit took years to play out, but ended with a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Although not without its implementa- tion difficulties, and certainly not without its critics, the requirement that housing be subsidized for the entire population, not just homeowners, is now in prac-

tice. The alternative was the elimination of the home mortgage tax deduction, but that was so jealously de- fended that it had no possibility of running the legis- lative gauntlet. Income tax deductions for home mortgage interest remain intact.

The increased social acceptance and practice of shared housing also made a contribution to housing availability and thus eased the pressures toward homelessness. The shared housing movement has de- veloped momentum from two directions. First, con- dominiums, clustered housing, and other shared space and facility arrangements were developed among the middle and upper-middle classes. This provided ex- perience, innovative ideas, and perhaps more impor- tantly, a sense of legitimacy to the shared housing movement. Second, as the response to homelessness developed in the 1980s and 1990s, some organizations became quite creative with the development of first stop housing and the social arrangements that accom- panied them. Many guests came to prefer the shelter or transitional housing environment to independent living because of its sense of community, companion- ship, and greater availability of services. The best are like apartments or neighborhoods with a social and educational director.

The shared space arrangements found attractive in larger first stop housing were duplicated in a variety of permanent housing settings. Doubling up, once thought to be undesirable, has become the norm in many neighborhoods. Many individuals and families who otherwise would be homeless have living quar- ters, although not to the old single-family standard. Both non-profit organizations and for-profit builders and developers have entered the market. The latest designs in apartments and neighborhoods reflect the shared space concept.

Zoning ordinances which once limited the number of unrelated individuals living in a single residence were declared exclusionary and unconstitutional early in the 21st century, opening up considerably more shared space opportunities.

The handbook and video on sharing living space developed by the National Center on Shared Housing covers many of the practicalities of multiple families living in common quarters. They emphasize things like developing a division of labor, communal budgeting, dispute resolution, and inexpensive ways to increase living space. The benefits for children, since finding quality child care is still extremely difficult, is one point highlighted in the handbook and the video. The children have a natural opportunity to play with other children; parents have an opportunity for time away

THE FUTURE OF HOMELESSNESS I 35

from children without the inconvenience of baby- sitters or other child care arrangements. Of course, the degree of social interaction and sharing varies considerably.

Some sociologists now acclaim the virtues of shared housing. Their argument is that some of the benefits of the extended family are being recaptured, a correc- tive to the isolationist, atomistic lifestyle in contem- porary Western society. The irony is strong, however. Because they have greater difficulty making neces- sary arrangements and have less well developed so- cial skills and trust of others, the extremely poor and the homeless have benefited less from this social in- novation than have the middle class.

Most scholars agree that the remarkable reduction in homelessness is a result of many factors, resulting both from macro social/economic changes and from specific policy changes in the way we respond to homelessness and related problems. One without the other would not have resulted in the dramatic results that have been achieved.

The Homelessness Problem Worsens In the first decade of the 21 st century, the home-

lessness problem surpassed anything experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. The number of homeless, in all categories, has risen steadily. The number of emer- gency shelter beds has doubled in the past decade, and they do not meet the demand. Hundreds are turned away nightly. The number of homeless mothers and children has dramatically increased. Cardboard vil- lages are common, although usually well hidden. De- spite exceeding earlier levels, this "second wave" of homelessness is given less attention than the first.

Two primary features account for this growth, or so social scientists argue: social and economic condi- tions have produced a larger population of vulnerable people and the social policy reform has reduced the support available for the poor. The combination has been severe.

One irony is that homelessness has worsened as a problem even though the economy is strong. The dis- tribution problem has not been solved. The gap be- tween the employability and income of the skilled and unskilled has widened. The very progress that has been so celebrated in modern society has produced a de- gree of complexity that has left many behind. The gap between haves and have nots has increased along with the complexity of technology. Society has become more and more complex and has offered little to bring along those who are not able to keep up with the change. Cash now is all but eliminated with almost

every transaction conducted electronically. This has proven to be a real convenience to the well educated and to major businesses; the transition has been far more difficult for the poor, the poorly educated, and those dependent on the informal economy that plays a much larger part in the lives of low-income than it does in the lives of the well-to-do. Traditional pan- handling has declined dramatically. Just the simple problem of money management has become increas- ingly difficult for those close to or below the "literacy line." Even seemingly simple steps like requiring wel- fare checks to be electronically deposited in bank ac- counts have caused hardships. Many poor persons do not have bank accounts. Basic literacy now requires not only the ability to read the printed word (which many still cannot do) but also the use of computers that, despite the strides in making them user-friendly, still have a level of complexity many have not mas- tered. Prices have come down, but computers are by no means evenly distributed in the population.

School systems have been roundly criticized for failure to bring all students to an acceptable level of literacy. School officials countered that it is impos- sible for schools to undo so many of the problems that the rest of society creates. Students are sent to school with guns and drugs, but no incentive to learn. Par- ents are as likely to fight against the schools if their child is disciplined as they are to cooperate with them. The disparity between schools and between school systems is an increasingly troublesome contributor to poverty and ultimately to homelessness. The better schools are getting better, but the poorly performing schools are getting even worse. Violence in schools has increased and spread. The dropout rate has gone up to 50 percent in many inner-city schools. There are a few exceptions, success stories brought about by especially effective leadership in a school district or an individual school here and there, but the overall pattern is not good. The effort to improve the educa- tional performance of children by requiring adequate test performance had unintended negative conse- quences. This carrot and stick arrangement caused school systems to devote more attention to academic subjects--the interest of the majority--and to reduce the already meager support for vocational programs. More students, rather than succeeding in vocational curricula, failed in the academic program.

The war on drugs is over--drugs won. Despite a variety of programs, the seductive nature of illegal recreational drugs and the power of zealous "market- ing" by distributors continued to expand drug use. Occasional dips in the number of drug users were al-

36 / SOCIETY �9 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 1998

ways soon followed by an increase that exceeded the previous high. The national pattern of drug use has been quite similar to the stock market--the long-term trend is up, even though there are periods of decline.

A "culture of poverty" seems to be a real contributor to homelessness. Poor communities are continuing to be isolated from the mainstream of the economy and society, providing a fertile environment for dysfunc- tional behavior patterns to develop. Such behavior pat- terns are reinforced from generation to generation. Efforts both to improve conditions within the ghetto areas and to encourage residents to move elsewhere have met with resistance. Inner city residents are still iso- lated from the growing opportunities of the urban fringe.

Mothers with young children have continued to be a large part of the poverty problem, and the homeless population. The number of single mothers, both in- and out of poverty, has increased. Many factors are blamed, depending upon the political ideology of the blamer: the increasing limitations on abortion, the so- cietal celebration of motherhood, the culture of pov- erty which emphasizes the here-and-now rather than the long-term, continuing openness of sexual behav- ior in the media, and the AIDS vaccine that eliminated the "big threat." The effort to create greater responsi- bility on the part of fathers has not had a significant or lasting impact. The responsibility of caring for chil- dren, given the scarcity of available child care, has been a major barrier to the ability of many single moth- ers to support themselves. Child care is difficult to arrange, whether formally or informally.

Welfare reform has had many of the negative ef- fects its critics warned us about. It was intended that the insistence on employment as a condition for---or substitute for--welfare benefits would establish in- centives and ultimately the self-discipline that would bring about greater self-reliance. The "experiment" did not work, at least not as well as its proponents ex- pected. Many welfare recipients were unable to find employment. Presidential jawboning and other efforts to stimulate jobs had occasional successes, but over- all did not come close to providing successful employ- ment. Some recipients became quite creative at finding reasons for being exempted from the requirements. Others simply refused to comply, lost their benefits and survived through a variety of means: unhealthy relationships, reliance on relatives, the informal economy, drug dealing, as well as use of soup kitch- ens and shelters. After exhausting the lifetime limit on TANF benefits, many ended up on the streets.

When the work requirements of the 1990s welfare reform did not seem to be working, a second round of

even more stringent requirements and an effort to close the " loopho le s" of the ear l ier legis la t ion were launched. These resulted in reforms which made eli- gibility requirements more stringent and exemptions more difficult to receive. The devolution and "block grant" nature of federal assistance allowed states to design their own unique welfare systems. There was a "rush to the bottom" in benefit packages, as no state wanted to provide more benefits than its neighbors, for fear of attracting low-income migrants.

Other programs of support and assistance also de- clined. General Assistance for single males and women without dependents has been steadily reduced over time, in some cases to nothing. Typical monthly subsidies are available only 2 months in a year. Energy programs designed to provide assistance to the poor for cold weather have been reduced, and all but eliminated. Most homeless prevention programs--primarily in the form of rental assistance were structured so that an individual could receive assistance---only once in a lifetime. This was the price of getting rental assistance bills funded, but it began to backfire. Early assistance did keep indi- viduals and families from immediately losing their hous- ing, but many of them did need additional assistance later. Since this was prohibited the tools for preventing the loss of housing were not available.

Housing policy shifts have also contributed. Major federal efforts in the latter part of the 20th century to privatize a significant portion of public housing and to change the income mix in that which remained have had the effect of reducing governmentally supplied housing for the very poor. Public housing used to be housing of the last resort, but today housing which remains competes with non-profit and private sector housing suppliers for housing voucher recipients. The public housing units not leased to voucher recipients are open to moderate income households at market rates. Coupling this public housing trend with the con- tinuing gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods by the private sector has produced a rather dramatic re- duction in the supply of affordable housing.

A major feature of the homelessness of the 21st century has been an increase in the number of work- ing homeless. At one time, the phenomenon of work- ing homeless was limited to places like California with exceptionally high housing costs. Now the problem is far more widespread. In relation to inflation and hous- ing costs, the value of a minimum wage has continued to decline. Housing stock, especially that in the af- fordable range, has continued to go down as well.

The NIMBY mentality continues to grow. Of course the not-in-my-backyard syndrome is not limited to

THE FUTURE OF HOMELESSNESS / 37

homeless shelters and services--landfil ls, prisons, highways, and even public parks, sometimes receive the same response. Many shelters around the country are in undesirable locations and shoddy structures, which were originally labeled as temporary, but pro- viders, have been unable to find new locations. Many localities around the country have major conflicts over the homeless issue. Both the retail business commu- nities and residential neighborhoods have taken a strong negative position, leaving service providers a diminishing set of options.

Disarray among the homeless and homeless advo- cate organizations also has been a barrier in moving ahead with some homeless programs. A major split in many communities developed between advocates, which included many homeless and formerly home- less, and service providers. The major sticking point has been the insistence on the "purity" of advocacy and the need to avoid mixing advocacy with service. Many homeless and formerly homeless and the more zealous advocates insist upon treating "the establish- ment"--government and the corporate business com- m u n i t y - a s the enemy. Efforts at cooperation are strongly resisted, making a united advocacy effort impossible. A number of long-standing local coalitions for the homeless have split up. Some simply disbanded and others split into separate groups.

The prospects for resolving the homelessness prob- lem, as well as other less severe forms of poverty, look bleak. Many long for the days when the homelessness rate was a mere 1%.

These scenarios argue that we have a long way to go in developing and carrying out an effective response to the homelessness problem. How might we react to them? The first question might be whether any are likely to come about? And if so, which? Of course none will play out exactly as described. Clearly many other sce- narios and variations on these, are possible. Still, these scenarios provoke thought about issues and possibili- ties, both positive and negative. The scenarios do indi- cate that the causes of homelessness are multiple and complex; so are potential solutions. Homelessness is more intractable than our response to date has acknowl- edged. Simple and quick solutions have not worked.

Perhaps homelessness should be framed as a fail- ure o f the existing social service system. Mainstream services like public assistance, mental health, employ- ment and training, and subsidized housing are at fault. Those who are homeless are the natural clients of these programs, but the very fact of their homelessness in-

dicates that those systems did not work. Had they worked, these persons would not have lost their hous- ing. And after they became homeless, many of these programs did not respond adequately. Instead, for the most part, mainstream programs served less difficult clients. In this framing of the problem, the focus of attention is not the creation of new services for a spe- cially designated homeless population, but the repair of systems not designed for homeless persons.

Another frame focuses attention not just on social services, but the fundamental characteristics of the eco- nomic, social, educational, legal system. Society it- se l f is f l a w e d and only fundamental change in the structure of society and policy will correct one of its most negative consequences--homelessness. Yet ad- dressing such fundamental issues may itself be fraught with dangers; solutions may be worse than the prob- lems they are intended to solve. Still, tinkering with social services will go only so far in addressing the ills of a society that leaves a significant portion of its citizens behind. The conditions causing homelessness may be a permanent feature of contemporary society unless entirely new institutions are developed as a response.

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS

Jim Baumohl, ed. Homelessness in America. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1996.

Martha R. Burt. Over the Edge: The Growth of Homelessness in the 1980s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.

George C. Hemmens, Charles J. Hoch, and Jana Carp, eds. Under One Roof" Issues and Innovations in Shared Housing. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996.

Christopher Jencks. The Homeless. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Peter Rossi. Down and Out in America: The Origins of Homelessness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Ralph S. Hambrick, Jr. is professor and director of the Public Administration Program at Virginia Commonwealth University. His professional interests include social policy, policy analysis and program evaluation, and strategic planning. Hambrick has published in these areas in a num- ber of monographs and journals. G a ~ T, Johnson is asso- ciate professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at Virginia Commonwealth University. He specializes in the fields of housing and transportation and has published on these topics in a number of journals. Johnson is co-editor of the Journal of the American Plan- ning Association.