Solving Homelessness: Notes from My Visit to Utah

The state of Utah conjures up many things for people, but perhaps most prevalent is the noting that it is a deeply conservative place culturally and politically. So headlines saying that Utah had effectively ended homelessness stood out even more than they might have had say Minnesota made the same claim. However, what I learned from the people I met with in the state offered some pretty straight forward ideas about why they’ve had success and why they haven’t ended homelessness. Here is a quick summary of leaders from non-profits, the state, and the church. I haven’t quoted anyone so that they could speak freely and openly about what they’ve learned.

In some ways, Utah is the perfect place to look at how state and local governments are addressing homelessness. It’s true that the state is conservative, but it was also founded by refugees. It’s easy to forget when looking at the imposing temple in the middle of downtown Salt Lake City that the state was settled by people who were essentially homeless, pushed and hounded across the country over decades by unprecedented religious prosecution. Many families making the trip to what would become Salt Lake City would bury their family members, including many children, along the side of the trail. Everyone I talked to affirmed that not only was it leadership from the church that helped give their efforts direction and gave it political force, but that the culture of communal self-preservation was part of it too.

There were three key points echoed by everyone I talked with. The problem needs a definition, there has to be good data, and the solutions should be based on outcomes, not following formulas or inputs.

Defining the Problem 

The simplest and most obvious definition of homelessness is people without housing. But even that gets complicated. Does shelter count as housing? Is person homeless when their sleeping in a family members basement? What about intermittent homelessness or situational homeless that resolves itself? These and many other questions are all the questions people working on the problem asked. The decision was made to put most energy into chronic homelessness,

Unaccompanied adult with a disabling condition homeless a year or more or four times in three years.

That definition and the decision to tackle that group was not and is not without controversy. There are many homeless people that fall outside that definition. But what I heard was that without a definition the problem becomes unmanageable to solve. The 10 year plan model to end homeless is a model that fails almost immediately because it simply can’t deliver on the promise in it’s name. The question then has to become about what is the worst part of the problem in terms of suffering and cost.

Using Good Data

As I’ve pointed out many times, taking on any housing issue is about getting the numbers right. After arriving at the definition the question was, “how many people are there in Utah that are chronically homeless?” After assessing the population in 2005 that number was 1,932 people. That’s a comparatively small number, but when considering the complexity of the problems in this population along with the length of time they have been living homeless, it becomes a significant challenge. One analysis found that for one year, a person had cost the state $563,000 in emergency room visits. Another chronically homeless person had $937,744 over three years in emergency room visits.

What overlapped in Utah was compassion and cost. The chronically homeless were suffering the most and costing the system the most. But because they are fewer in number they are also better known to the system. That means bigger challenges per person, but fewer people and people who already have a relationship with the system. This also means they are easier to track and gather information about progress toward ending their condition.

Measure Success Using Outcomes

I heard a familiar frustration from those I talked with that was familiar: there are too many limits and rules at the front end of the housing system. Whether it is paperwork and applications to get funding or a system that measures success with the number of encounters or visits or how full a shelter is or isn’t, the problem with the way government works on homelessness often comes down to incentives. If a organizations are limited and rewarded by filling out grant forms, successfully managing a shelter, or making a set number of outreach visits, those things become the measure of progress rather than how many people have moved out of homelessness.

Nobody questioned the motivation of people in the system, but how the system didn’t hold everyone in it accountable to reducing the problem. And there is no way to do that without a good definition of the problem and data about the problem. So outcomes became the focus rather than the “how” of the outcome. The leadership of Utah’s effort had political support to challenge the accretion of bureaucracy to move the dial on solving the problem. By 2015 the number of chronically homeless people had failed from 1,932 to 178.

Did Utah just define it’s way out of the problem? Not really. Nobody suggested that there is no more homeless problem or even that the state will continue to struggle with the problem indefinitely. But what I heard was a lot of political investment from elected officials and moral leadership from the Mormon church and involvement from the private sector. The politicians provided the resources, the church the cultural imperative, and the private sector money. These things matter when it comes to moving a bureaucracy, entrenched interests, and good people protecting their constituents.

In my next post, I’ll suggest what this might mean for our own homeless issues here and especially for the encampment problem.

Why I Went to Utah to Learn More About Homelessness

I just returned from Salt Lake City where I spent about 8 hours talking with non-profits, the State of Utah, and Lloyd Pendleton, who all worked toward reducing chronic homelessness. You might wonder why I did this. Utah has been touted as a state that just about solved chronic homelessness and it seemed important to find out if that was true and if it was, what could we learn. So before I share what I learned in Utah (which I will do in subsequent posts here and at Forbes), and what I think it might mean for Seattle’s struggle with homelessness and with encampments in particular, I think I’ll explain why this is important to our work expanding supply and supporting a housing economy that is both sustainable and affordable for a wide array of people with all levels of incomes.

First, chronic homelessness and encampments are a real problem of human suffering that is more than just a housing problem. One thing confirmed by the people I talked to in Utah is that when we see a person living outside, in a car, or in a tent, the solution isn’t simply handing that person a key to a “unit.” The causes of homeless vary by individual, and if we are truly to make our city a humane and welcoming place, we have to recognize that the solution to housing issues isn’t a fiat issued by the Mayor, whether that fiat is imposing fees on new housing or sweeping away encampments. We need better data, better definitions, collaboration, and empowered patient leadership.

Second, the issues associated with homelessness and encampments are a flashpoint for those who want to impose bad housing policies that will make our housing economy worse for poor people. When middle class homeowners who worry about their investment in a single-family home see increases in homelessness, it adds momentum to their fears and worries about growth, empowering the angry and fearful voices that also shut down microhousing and continue to demand more limits and restrictions on all housing. For different reasons, the more visible homelessness is, the more left leaning progressives push for more controls on the housing economy that will surely make life worse for everyone.

Finally, the City’s approach, and specifically the Mayor’s approach, is a manifest failure in leadership that all of us working on housing issues regardless of our ideology, our views about the solutions to the problems and what the problems are, and who we represent in the discussion, should call out and demand accountability and improvement. What I share with many of the advocates for the homeless community is a desire to find solutions to problems in the housing economy that leverage innovation, reduce rules and restrictions on that innovation, and, ultimately, reduce suffering and expand opportunity for everyone who wants to share our city with those of us already here.

Smart Growth Seattle is an organization premised on the idea that more people moving to Seattle is a good thing, that the demand for housing created by new jobs and economic development is an opportunity for everyone, and that, if we allow innovation, we can solve housing issues in a way that will prevent sprawl, economic trauma, and reduce our impact on the environment. For us to be successful in that endeavor, we must show that building more housing not only doesn’t create homelessness but that it will actually help reduce the problem. While I am not an expert on homelessness, what I learned in Utah, I hope, will add something positive to our local discussion.

 

 

On Rent Control and the Power of the Market

This morning I’ll be presenting at an educational conference of the Institute of Real Estate Management. My topic is rent control and Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (MIZ). Here’s what my power point looks like. It’s a reprise of my post from a couple years ago about rent control.

Move In Rules More Rent Control Through the Back Door

Update 10/3/2016: The Seattle City Council has passed out of committee legislation that is, essentially, piecemeal rent control. The proposed legislation is full of unintended consequences and won’t work. Here’s a comprehensive explanation of why from the Rental Housing Association of Washington shared at today’s Council hearing on the legislation. 

Re: CB 118756 – caps on rental housing move‐in fees

Dear Councilmembers,

The Rental Housing Association of Washington (RHAWA) represents 5,100 independent landlords who operate their property as a second job. Their units are nest eggs for the future, not trust funds for luxury now. For the past few years, independent landlords in Seattle have been hammered with regulations which harm their ability to mitigate the huge financial risks they take when renting their private property.

The latest proposal, CB 118756 – caps on rental housing move‐in fees – presents many unintended consequences, is poor public policy, and should not receive any further consideration by Council. The presentation at today’s Energy and Environment Committee – which in and of itself presents an odd forum for hearing a bill regarding rental housing – and purported by WashCAN to support the need for CB 118756, is based on information collected by a methodology known as “snowball sampling” and is severely flawed.

Snowball sampling is a non‐probability sampling technique where existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their acquaintances. Literally, WashCAN is basing their entire report and policy recommendations to Council on responses they received from their own members, their members’ friends, and individuals who actively seek out their information on social media.

That CB 188756 is based upon flawed reports and arguments is enough of a reason for it to not move forward, but is only one part of a lengthy list of concerns about unintended consequences for both tenants and independent landlords.

The idea that move‐in fees can be capped and spread out over a period of time without any further impacts to the rental housing market is fundamentally wrong. The very reason independent landlords charge security deposits and non‐refundable fees is to guard against huge financial risk and to ensure that the rental unit is returned in a reasonable condition upon termination of the rental agreement. We take more than 6,000 calls a year from our membership with a great deal of them focused entirely upon lost income due to property damages and unpaid rent.

Move‐in fees are the only means, outside of monthly rent, for independent landlords to cover their risk. In fact, the ability to charge move‐in fees, which are overwhelmingly refundable, allows independent landlords to keep monthly rents lower. This is a benefit to tenants.

CB 118756 will also strip independent landlords of the ability to offer underqualified applicants an opportunity for tenancy if they supply additional financial securities. This will significantly harm the very renters purported to be helped by this legislation – those who are financially disadvantaged. Without an ability to mitigate the risk of renting to an underqualified applicant by asking for a larger deposit, independent landlords will simply no longer offer underqualified applicants housing opportunities.

CB 118756, if enacted, will also lead to screening standards for tenants are greatly increased to ensure that the tenant who qualifies is very highly qualified – particularly when pairing this legislation with CB 118755 which forces independent landlords to rent to the first qualified applicant. Again, this means even less housing opportunities for renters with few resources and / or problematic rental backgrounds.

Also concerning is the provision which would force Independent landlords to offer move‐in fee payment plans to tenants at their request. It must be understood that independent landlords are not lenders with unlimited capital and an ability to absorb financial losses by spreading risk over thousands of units.

Forcing independent landlords to provide payment plans ‐ essentially 4 to 6‐month term, 0% interest loan ‐ as requested by a renter is unfair, and creates an uneven playing field until the point where all move‐in fees are paid in full. Without a fully paid security deposit, for example, a tenant is able to easily break a term lease without much, if any, repercussions. For an independent landlord, having a tenant with no skin in the game will lead to finding other ways to offset their financial risk.

RHAWA is asking you to consider the basic realities of risk‐reward economics involved in renting private property. Sufficient, up‐front financial guarantees are necessary to ensure things such as damages and unpaid rent will be covered.

As an alternative to placing independent landlords at huge risk, causing rents to increase, and restricting access to rental housing for underqualified renters, RHAWA asks that the City consider allocating dollars within the renewed housing levy to create a revolving fund for providing deposit assistance to tenants.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Melany Brown,
Director
Rental Housing Association of Washington

Panel: Density, Displacement and Policy in a Growing Seattle

Next week, on Monday, September 19th, I’ll be on a panel to discuss density, growth, and displacement. As I’ve pointed out, we really don’t know what displacement is or how to measure it. Here’s the details on the panel:

6:00PM – 8:00PM
CENTER FOR ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN
1010 WESTERN AVENUE, SEATTLE WA 98104

This event is free

  

Seattle is growing. Denser, more efficient urban environment replaces existing structure. Businesses come and go. Infrastructure expands. Neighborhoods are redesigned around pedestrians and cyclists. Rents increase. Displacement occurs. But does urban growth lead to inequitable neighborhoods? How do we, as a city, design neighborhoods that serve the greatest share of the population? How do we encourage thriving businesses that serve their community?

We will host a panel discussion revolving around the drivers of change on a neighborhood scale and on the challenges facing a growing city. Our diverse panel features a local restauranteur that brings new and lasting contributions to our neighborhoods, a planner responsible for accommodating low-income housing and an advocate for large-scale development projects. Come listen and take part in a conversation on the factors behind Seattle’s urbanization and the policies aimed to guide it.

Moderator:

Panelists:

PRESENTED BY
AIA Seattle Urban Design Forum