Homelessness in New York City: Why It Is Necessary To Take a Different Approach
At this time, the number of homeless people in New York City is at an all-time high. With a population of more than 8.3 million people, one in every 106 New Yorkers is homeless, amounting to almost 80,000 of homeless men, women, and children. The COVID-19 pandemic, which put more than 50,000 individuals at risk of eviction this year, exacerbated an already raging homelessness crisis. While homelessness is not a new phenomenon in the United States or in New York City, it is undeniably a historical event that began in the late 1970s. And yet, homelessness has never been as prevalent and evident in the city affecting such a diverse range of people and communities. There are multiple reasons why people become homeless with the lack of affordable housing ranking as the primary cause of homelessness followed by eviction, overcrowded housing, domestic violence, drug addiction, job loss, and hazardous housing conditions. While New York City’s right to shelter law guarantees housing for each individual that needs it, permanent housing accompanied by social services, as seen in Finland’s housing policy, is a necessity for creating meaningful and long-term improvements in the homelessness crisis.
In order to understand the current climate of homelessness in New York City, it is imperative to understand its history. The homeless population in New York City increased enormously in the late 1970s, consequently becoming a major political issue. The city’s housing stock underwent substantial changes at this time, the most notable of which was the decline in the amount of single-room housing units. Single-room occupancy (SRO) units and residential hotels are examples of single-room housing, which has played an important role in accommodating New York’s homeless population. According to The Coalition for the Homeless, this population consisted of “poor single adults, childless couples, and even families (until regulatory enforcement in the early 1960s prohibited occupancy by families)” (Coalition). Patients discharged from psychiatric institutes and hospitals were also among the common occupants, especially after the state established a new strategy of “deinstitutionalization” for thousands of mentally ill people in the 1950s. As a result, “many deinstitutionalized individuals living with mental illness had no alternative but to move into single-room housing” while the government neglected to invest the money saved from releasing these patients into community-based housing (Coalition).
Additionally, single-room housing stock began to diminish significantly in the 1970s due to conversion and demolition, with the number of single-room units that once were an affordable housing option, dropping by more than 100,000 by the end of the decade. In an attempt to combat this, the city introduced what is known as a right to shelter law which it has to this day. As Sarah Gonzalez said in her podcast Counting The Homeless, this means that “New York City is legally obligated to find a bed for every person who needs one — every single adult, every family, every couple — every night of the year” (Gonzalez, Helm). Despite the fact that New York City has a law guaranteeing everyone a right to housing, the number of those in need outweighs the number of shelters; therefore the city resorted to renting out hotel rooms. Only last year, the city spent as much as $364 million dollars paying for hotels as shelters, and even more for traditional shelters.
The lack of low-income housing and shelters, however, is only half of the problem; diminishing social services and rising drug addiction led to an increase in the number of individuals living on the streets. In the 1980s, a new generation of homeless people emerged, known as “The New Homeless,” who had developed addiction at a younger age and were struggling even more than the older homeless populations. Their early addiction made them “unemployable,” which coupled with the severe recession, was another contributing factor to the homelessness epidemic (Soffer). Even though this remains true for the current homeless, the city has not made improvements in the social services available to those struggling.
As New York City is resorting to buying out hotels as shelters, multiple studies have shown that providing permanent housing with social services for the homeless could be a far more logical solution both financially and morally. Dennis Culhane, a social policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, conducted research on the chronically homeless, who spend a lot of time traveling between shelters, emergency rooms, being hospitalized, being arrested, and going to jail. He studied 10,000 chronically homeless persons for eight years to establish whether paying their rent and providing them with housing aid would cost more than keeping things as they were and allowing them to continue being homeless. What his and many other studies have shown is that, “Placing homeless persons … into subsidized permanent housing with social service support promises to substantially reduce the demand for shelter among those placed” (Culhane). This once again brings up the question of why New York City is not investing more into homeless services and permanent housing with the goal of ending chronic homelessness.
The city and state collaboratively worked on the New York/New York (NY/NY) agreements in order to increase the availability of supportive housing in New York City. However, a new influx of funds was required. Despite the promises made by the city and state, the construction of new supportive housing has been far too sluggish with a disproportionate amount of placements. As stated by the Coalition for Homelessness, “Record homelessness demands bold solutions, not half-measures and needless delays” (Coalition). At this moment, improving the homelessness crisis in NYC is only a matter of political will.
It is quite shocking that one of the richest cities in the world is having so much trouble finding solutions to help its homeless population — it is almost as if it just does not care enough. It is not impossible to improve the way we are currently dealing with the homelessness crisis, but maybe there is no zest or will to do so. If there is a country to look to for inspiration, it is Finland. In a country of approximately 5.5 million people, the number of people living on the street is in the hundreds. The reason for this is their “Housing First” strategy which avoids the traditional and rather inefficient route of temporary housing. As Juha Kaakinen, the director of the Y-foundation explains, “We had to get rid of the night shelters and short-term hostels we still had back then. They had a very long history in Finland, and everyone could see they were not getting people out of homelessness. We decided to reverse the assumptions” (Kaakinen). In Finland, people experiencing homelessness are given an apartment accompanied by counseling, both without any strings attached. As a result, four out of five people are able to find their way back to a stable life which ends up being far cheaper than simply letting them stay homeless.
A similar approach has been used in Denmark resulting in their rate of homelessness to be ten times lower than that of the United States. In addition to following Finland’s Housing First strategy, Denmark has four main goals which are: “1) no citizen should be forced to live on the street 2) young people should never live in hostels for the homeless 3) periods of housing in “care homes” or shelters should last no longer than three to four months, and 4) if one is released from prison or discharged from courses of treatment, an accommodation must be in place” (Hansen). Denmark has been successful in setting clear and sensible goals, and most importantly following through with them which is something New York City has not been able to do. Another important factor in Denmark’s success in decreasing homelessness is that they “successfully monitor the effectiveness of the strategies used” as well as “interventions on an individual level with the goal of obtaining evidence of the impact of specific methods” (Benjaminsen and Kamstrup 4). Making sure that their strategy is efficient might just be the primary reason they are able to maintain such a low rate of homelessness.
New York City could employ Finland’s and Denmark’s model before the crisis takes a turn for the worse. By now it is clear that permanent housing “provides a more humane alternative to living on the streets and in shelters, and providers report retention rates in such housing to be upwards of 70 percent in the first year after placement” (Culhane). Currently, the city’s mayor, Bill De Blasio, has a “Housing New York 2.0 plan” in place which “promised to set aside 5 percent of its new planned 300,000 housing units for homeless New Yorkers” (Neiditch). However, once again the number of units can in no way house all those in need of one, social services are not provided with all of them, and the plan is designed for families that are able to pay monthly rent of more than $2,500. While those in charge argue that there simply is not enough funding for a better thought out plan, the housing-first plan employed by Finland could save the city money in the future while dramatically reducing the number of homeless.
While New York City’s plan to end homelessness does seem like a step in the right direction, it looks as if the number of homeless individuals might return back to the historically high numbers, if more changes are not implemented. Instead, a plan, such as Housing First, that prioritizes the wellbeing and support of all homeless individuals in New York City could have the potential to truly make a long lasting difference. Kaakinen emphasized that, even though “There is no quick fix to all life situations… a solid base provides the foundations upon which to improve the welfare of the homeless” (Kaakinen). In the long run, this plan could help not only the homeless individuals living in the city, but also the city’s economy and safety, overall making it a more desirable place for all its residents. On another note, irrespective of what causes it, homelesness is not a choice. Government inefficacy in providing a sustainable solution to the problem of homelessness is not the only challenge that the homeless face. There are many assumptions, usually incorrect and hurtful about the homeless that lead to prejudice against them and consequently the lack of empathy for them. Not every homeless person is a drug addict and not every homeless person is a criminal. While individual initiatives or random acts of kindness may not make an actual difference, they count towards grace and making the day living on the street at least slightly more bearable.
Works Cited
Benjaminsen, Lars and Rune Kamstrup, “The Danish National Homelessness Strategy- Experiences on Anchoring Interventions on Municipal Level.” (2010): 1–5. Google. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. PDF file.
Culhane, Dennis P., et al. “Public Service Reductions Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing.” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 13, no. 1, 2002, pp. 107–163., https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2002.9521437.
“18. Homelessness.” Ed Koch and the Rebuilding of New York City, 2010, pp. 276–289., doi:10.7312/soff15032–018.
Gonzalez, Sarah, and Sally Helm. “Counting The Homeless.” NPR, NPR, 18 May 2019, www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-counting-the-homeless
Hansen, Finn Kenneth. “The Homeless Strategy in Denmark.” European Journal of Homelessness. 4 (2010): 112–125. Web. 2. Dec. 2011
Housing Policy in New York City: A Brief History. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2020, from https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/AHistoryofHousingPolicycombined0601_000.pdf
Kontrast.at, et al. “Finland Ends Homelessness and Provides Shelter for All in Need.” Scoop.me, 10 Nov. 2020, https://scoop.me/housing-first-finland-homelessness/.
Why Are So Many People Homeless? (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2020, from https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/why-are-so-many-people-homeless/
