The homeless and housing problem in the United States is a very complicated one, which is characterized by unavailable housing, structural injustice, and the increasing number of homeless people. The scarcity of housing that conforms to the economic power of most people is one of the significant causes of homelessness. This worsens the problem because of discriminatory tactics such as redlining, which negatively impacts minority neighborhoods, further driving racial disparities in housing stability and access. Apart from economic disadvantages, social and policy issues are evident in urban and rural settings, personifying people experiencing homelessness as a representation of such concerns (Eide, 2020). Visible homelessness affects the communities as the affected individuals, businesses, schooling institutions, and broader society are affected. In addition, the problem is closely related to drug abuse, mental health issues, and lack of sufficient support for vulnerable groups. The intricacy of the connection between homelessness and housing indicates how urgent this problem is to be solved completely. Creating effective policies that ensure just housing opportunities for all, considering systemic racism, historical injustices, and the broader socioeconomic environment, is necessary (Rukmana, 2020). Through this, the underlying causes of homelessness will be addressed, long-term solutions will be developed, and the current problems that homeless people face will be alleviated.
The housing and homelessness issues involve many people, groups, and organizations, each with particular interests and opinions. Primary stakeholders are directly impacted parties, and secondary stakeholders have considerable but indirect interests.
The primary stakeholders for homeless people are homeless people because they are the center of the problem. The policies and programs to prevent homelessness directly affect their overall well-being, access to shelter, and potential for permanent housing (Rukmana, 2020). This also involves advocacy and homelessness-related nonprofit organizations. These bodies are essential in passing knowledge, providing assistance, and advocating legislative reforms for homeless people.
Secondary stakeholders include federal, state, and municipal government bodies responsible for implementing housing policy. The direct effect of homelessness on communities is something that local governments handle directly and thus is very important. The secondary stakeholders include landlords, real estate developers, and housing agencies that own a stake in the rules of housing law, the rental market, and property prices (Elder & King, 2019). Companies operating in places where homelessness is prevalent also have some interest in the matter of homelessness, which might impact the state of the local economy and sentiments toward the public.
The indirect effect of homelessness on educational institutions can be through the consequences that homelessness has on students’ academic performance as well as the challenges that the students face in finding secure accommodation. Finally, the community, the inhabitants, and the local organizations are stakeholders vested in policies concerning homelessness, as they directly influence the community’s quality of living and cohesion (Eide, 2020). Understanding and considering these diverse stakeholders is crucial to addressing the housing and homelessness crises and creating sustainable, inclusive, and practical solutions.
From a black perspective, institutional and historical racism is the center of the housing and homelessness issues, a pathetic history that still affects the Black communities in America. Systematic housing discrimination through the lending policy, the zoning rule, redlining, and other practices had always denied Black individuals and families opportunities for fair housing options.
The government and commercial organizations engaged in a practice of discrimination referred to as “redlining,” whereby Black communities were categorized as high-risk zones for loans. This resulted in de-investment and perpetual poverty cycles. These activities have long-standing outcomes on Black communities’ homeownership, wealth accrual, and economic well-being. Racial differences in housing are quite visible (Elder & King, 2019). The overall rates of homelessness, eviction, and unstable housing tend to be considerably higher among Black Americans compared to White Americans. As a result of structural inequalities in income, employment, and education, black individuals and families face further challenges in accessing and maintaining safe housing.
The essence of a Black-centered approach implies recognizing the relationship between housing and the larger social and economic injustices. It is not only due to individual decisions that housing is unstable; structural barriers that have long excluded Black communities are also to blame. To help eliminate this difference, policies that will focus on the source of systematic racism and the current housing problem need to be done (Eide, 2020). Additionally, gentrification, a common concomitant of urban revitalization, can displace long-established Black communities that are forced to move out of their neighborhoods because of rising housing costs. Gentrification contributes to the homelessness cycle and unstable housing, thus rendering Black people and families the most vulnerable.
The problem of housing and homelessness in the United States has a link to the work of the civil rights pioneer Martin Luther King Jr., whose advocacy went beyond racial equality to include issues of economic justice and fair housing. As a fundamental human right, Dr. King appreciated that housing was fundamental to achieving more significant social and economic equality (Colburn & Aldern, 2022). Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) initiated the Chicago Freedom Movement in 1966 to fight against prejudice and racial segregation in northern metropolitan areas, specifically in housing. The movement sought to ensure fair housing policies by halting practices denying Black people and families the opportunity to get decent homes in areas where they wished to live.
Dr. King responded that the structural barriers to attaining fair and fair housing in Black communities led him to join the Chicago Freedom Movement. His understanding that housing was more than a case of shelter but also an essential element in determining economic stability and progress manifested his commitment to economic justice. The civil rights movement is one legislative product of the movement, including Dr. King’s work and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, shortly after Dr. King’s death (Elder & King, 2019). The act is aimed to eliminate discrimination in housing policies regarding national origin, race, color, or religion. Despite being historic legislation, there are current housing and homelessness issues, so efforts to fully achieve the objective of equal and fair housing for all should not stop.
The National Urban League, founded in 1910, among other organizations, has spearheaded the struggle to address black communities’ social and economic problems, including unequal housing. Since the National Urban League has been working towards that end, it has advocated for laws that promote equal housing, job, and education opportunities to empower Black people and families economically (Rukmana, 2020). For instance, the “Housing and Urban Development” program of the National Urban League calls for a fair housing policy and pursues mixed communities. The group continues the heritage of earlier pioneers, such as Dr. King, who fought against housing discrimination and made poor people’s lives easier by supporting various affordable housing programs. It asserts the historical roots of the fight for housing equity to connect the challenges of homelessness and housing to the battle of earlier crusaders and organizations (Colburn & Aldern, 2022). Besides racial integration, Dr. King conceived of a future characterized by a just society that emphasized the empowerment of all people, including economically, of which affordable and accessible housing was a fundamental part. Even though there have been some advances since the civil rights era, there are still problems that show how essential it is to continue the move to fill the gap in housing and reach the goal of equal housing chances for all people.
The housing and homelessness crises in the US are closely related to the social policies and programs that are currently in place, showing both the progress and persistent challenges in addressing this complex issue. Regarding housing and homelessness, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a critical department at the federal level (Elder & King, 2019). Initiatives, such as a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, are aimed at assisting low-income families—including homeless families—with rent. HUD’s Continuum of Care program, which looks at outreach, support, and prevention, helps coordinate community-based programs fighting homelessness.
Several federal, state, and local programs are meant to boost the number of affordable housing. Investments in affordable housing projects are encouraged with public incentives under Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds states and municipalities for affordable housing initiatives (Eide, 2020). The high prices of housing are among the most prominent causes of homelessness, and this is what these projects aim to address.
A popular approach to addressing homelessness is HUD’s Housing First policy, which focuses on securing stable housing as a primary intervention. This approach recognizes the importance of having emergency shelters and other forms of assistance to address the multiplicity of needs among those who are homeless (Colburn & Aldern, 2022). States and municipalities typically pass laws tailored for particular issues regarding housing. Then, some places do fast rehousing programs that help people and families go from homelessness to permanent housing as soon as possible, while others have rent control laws that protect residents from sudden increases in rates.
Homelessness is one of the main objectives to be prevented in contemporary social policy. Programs that offer cash support for rent, utilities, and other housing-related expenses are designed to keep people and families in their homes and prevent their inclusion into the circle of homelessness. Despite such endeavors, there are still problems. Funding shortages, bureaucratic hurdles, and the discrepancy between the supply and demand for housing still hinder development (Rukmana, 2020). Critiques contend that social policies are more likely to focus on controlling the situation as opposed to addressing the underlying causes of homelessness, such as structural inequalities and insufficient affordable homes.
These policy ideas are put out to fully solve the problem of housing and homelessness while advancing social justice, human rights, and economic equity:
First, there is a need to expand the financing for affordable housing. The appropriate federal, state, and municipal allotments should be significantly enhanced to realize this. Affordable housing development is a significant project that must be backed by adequate funds, even more so in areas where the shortage is acute (Eide, 2020). This policy recommendation adheres to the values of social justice through the assurance of equal housing opportunities, which implies that any person and his family, regardless of their income, can have a safe and affordable home.
Second, enhancing and maintaining anti-discrimination legislation in the housing sector is necessary. This recommendation aims to compensate for historical wrongs that have been predominantly suffered by the most vulnerable groups, including the communities of color (Colburn & Aldern, 2022). Human rights ideals of non-discrimination and equal treatment are consistent with the strict enforcement of laws that outlaw discriminatory practices, such as redlining, making it impossible to purposefully restrict housing options solely based on race, ethnicity, or any other protected class.
Promoting locally-driven solutions is also critical. Inculcating a sense of responsibility and flexibility concerning various demands by nurturing the local communities to take an active part in planning for housing policy decisions is a characteristic of a healthy system (Colburn & Aldern, 2022). With a focus on the fact that inclusive, participatory approaches must be rewarded and policies should respond to the peculiarities of each community’s issues, this proposal aligns with the principles of social justice.
A complete strategy should include incorporating mental health and support services in housing programs. This protocol ensures that individuals who are homeless receive total treatment since this guideline recognizes the association between mental health disorders and unstable housing (Elder & King, 2019). Everyone’s interest is served and directed at the source of homelessness, which is in line with human rights ideals.
Last, a pre-emptive approach is to promote employment and education opportunities. As structural barriers that lead to housing insecurity, the policies aim to address fair access to housing education, jobs, and quality housing. This practice strengthens individuals and families to become financially stable. It reduces the chances of homelessness, which is aligned with the doctrine of economic equality by providing funds to support education and job training programs.
Colburn, G., & Aldern, C. P. (2022). Homelessness is a housing problem: How structural factors explain US patterns. Unit of California Press.
Eide, S. (2020). Housing First and homelessness: The rhetoric and the reality. City Journal.
Elder, J., & King, B. (2019). Housing and homelessness as a public health issue: Executive summary of policy adopted by the American Public Health Association. Medical Care, 57(6), 401-405.
Rukmana, D. (2020). The causes of homelessness and the characteristics associated with high risk of homelessness: a review of intercity and intracity homelessness data. Housing Policy Debate, 30(2), 291–308.