<a href="https://citylimits.org/2015/02/25/after-the-shouting-do-shelters-and-supportive-housing-harm-neighborhoods/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">After the Shouting, Do Shelters and Supportive Housing Harm Neighborhoods?</a>
This article which cites research studies and data tries to answer the following questions in the wake of disputes against shelters for homeless in NY: What effects do residential facilities for the homeless really have on their surroundings? Are the anti-shelter groups in Far Rockaway, Glendale, Elmhurst and on the Upper West Side right? Does housing for the homeless put an undue strain on local services and pose a threat to schoolchildren? Does the city give communities too little input or concentrate such facilities unfairly in certain neighborhoods?
What does the research say?
Researchers say that two of the most common concerns about residences for the homeless—shelters and supportive housing—are that they will reduce property values and increase crime. Accordingly, these claims have received the most attention in scholarship.
... fears about housing for the homeless can be overblown—a finding that largely reinforces broader research.
What’s to blame for this gap between expectations and outcomes, between perhaps understandable assumptions and more nuanced truths? “They just don’t want the idea of a shelter in their neighborhood,” said Johnson, the resident of the Westchester Square facility, of local opponents. Sometimes, it seems, ideas can be more menacing than reality.
Jesse Coburn
<a href="https://citylimits.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">CityLimits.org</a>
February 25, 2015
HTML
<a href="http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/2017_2018_GJreport/2018-05-31_Homeles_Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Where There's Will There's A Way: Housing Orange County's Chronically Homeless</a>
Permanent Supportive Housing
Does the County of Orange have the political will to overcome the roadblocks to housing the county’s chronically homeless population? That's the question the 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury examined.
Despite research evidence for the success of the 'Housing First" model the Grand Jury found significant roadblocks for ending homelessness such as resident resistance (NIMBY), lack of collaboration between the County and Cities, and the difficulty of funding and siting.
The Grand Jury concluded that "If political will is defined as a sufficient number of key decision-makers who are intensely committed to supporting Permanent Supportive Housing as a solution for the chronically homeless, then the answer is “not yet.”
To improve collaboration and overcome roadblocks, the Grand Jury recommends the County and cities establish a regional body empowered to develop and implement a comprehensive business plan for siting and funding Permanent Supportive Housing development." 38 page report with an extensive list of references and resources that show that housing first works, homeless housing do not decrease property values or increase crimes (two concerns of residents who frequently resist siting homeless housing near neighborhoods). The Grand Jury also reports that Orange County which is the 10th most expensive place to live in the nation, where incomes have not kept pace with fair market rents does not have enough homeless housing. Includes an extensive list of peer reviewed research, websites, videos and other resources.
<a href="http://www.ocgrandjury.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Orange County Grand Jury</a>
<a href="http://www.ocgrandjury.org/reports" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Orange County Grand Jury</a>
May 31, 2018
PDF
English
Report
Orange County - California
<a href="http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenterPolicyBriefonSupportiveHousing_LowRes.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Impact of Supportive Housing on Surrounding Neighborhoods: Evidence from New York City</a>
Permanent Supportive Housing
This 8-page policy brief is a summary of the Furman Center’s research on the effects supportive housing has on the values of surrounding properties.
...findings show that the values of properties within 500 feet of supportive housing show steady growth relative to other properties in the neighborhood in the years after supportive housing opens. Properties somewhat further away (between 500 and 1,000 feet) show a decline in value when supportive housing first opens, but prices then increase steadily, perhaps as the market realizes that fears about the supportive housing turned out to be wrong. The city, state, and providers of supportive housing must continue to maximize the positive effects of supportive housing and ensure that supportive housing residences remain good neighbors. But the evidence refutes the frequent assertions by opponents of proposed developments that supportive housing has a sustained negative impact on neighboring property values.
The full study is available at http://furmancenter.nyu.edu.
<a href="http://furmancenter.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy, New York University</a>
PDF
English
Policy Brief
New York -- United States
<a href="http://www.buttehomelesscoc.com/uploads/1/1/7/5/117500423/impacts_of_public_safety_approach_to_homelessness_community_report_2017.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Impacts of Chico's Public Safety Approach to Homelessness: Initial Analyses (2017</a>)
This is a 25 page pdf study conducted by an interdisciplinary team of faculty and staff at CSU Chico. There is an executive summary on page 24-25.
Municipalities around the country are increasingly concerned about a rise in homelessness. While there are various approaches to this issue, many cities are using public safety laws and resources to mitigate the effects of a growing homeless population. The analyses contained in this report examine the costs of these ordinances, as well as other implications, such as the geography of arrests.
The analyses contained in this report examine the costs of these ordinances, as well as other implications, such as the geography of arrests. In the analysis, we focus on the sit-lie ordinance and its implementation (December 19, 2013), mainly due to the high level of public and media attention surrounding the ordinance. We focus exclusively on the implications and costs borne by the City of Chico’s Police Department. Other agencies, such as the Butte County Sherriff’s Office also incur substantial costs entailed with policing the homeless population.
To understand the law enforcement implications, we employ a natural experiment comparing law enforcement data preceding and following enforcement of the sit-lie ordinance. Specifically, we explored arrests and citations data between Jan. 1, 2010 and June 30, 2016, with enforcement of sit-lie occurring on December 19, 2013. Over the specified period 26.5% of the arrests in the data are associated with individuals experiencing homelessness.
Jennifer Wilking
Department of Political Science
CSU
Susan Roll
School of Social Work
CSU
David Philhour
Department of Psychology
College of BSS
CSU
Chico
Peter Hansen
Department of Geography
Geographic Information Center
CSU
Chico
Holly Nevarez
Department of Health and Community Services
CSU, Chico
<a href="http://www.buttehomelesscoc.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Butte Continuum of Care</a>
May 2017
PDF
English
City of Chico - California
<a href="http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/htf_homeless_3.8.18.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Homelessness Tools and Resources for Cities and Counties: Homelessness Task Force Report</a>
48 page report. California is home to 21 of the 30 most expensive rental markets in the nation and the state does not have enough affordable housing stock to meet the demand of low-income households. The state’s 2.2 million extremely low-income and very low-income renter households compete for 664,000 affordable rental homes.
As national and state programs fall short of fully addressing homelessness in California, local governments are coming together to find solutions for their communities. Collaboration, cooperation and support at the local level are key to addressing this crisis. That is why the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) formed the Joint Homelessness Task Force in late 2016 to examine these issues and discuss collaborative local solutions to address homelessness.
The task force met over the course of a year to better understand homelessness in California. The task force wanted to identify not only known best practices but also promising new practices that cities and counties are implementing to address homelessness, as well as the challenges, lessons and gaps communities are facing in the fight to end it. The culmination of the task force’s work is a report, developed in partnership with League and CSAC affiliate the Institute for Local Government, which provides practical tools for cities and counties in California to use in addressing homelessness in their communities.
<a href="http://www.ca-ilg.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Homelessness Task Force Report, Institute for Local Government</a>
8 March 2018
PDF
Report
California-- United States