Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Work?

The latest from The Porthole and the wider world of science. [View in browser](| [Join Nautilus]( Did a friend forward this? [Subscribe here.]( This Tuesday, your FREE member newsletter includes the week’s top science news, plus one full story, below, from The Porthole, our section for short sharp looks at science. Enjoy! DISCOVERIES The Top Science News This Week [How Loneliness Makes Others Seem Less Trustworthy]( Lonely people are more likely to form unfavorable first impressions of others. [Communications Biology→]( [When Something Big Hit Our Planet, Creating the Moon, It Left Traces in the Earth]( It’s the latest evidence yet that our moon arose from a massive object, “Theia,” hitting our young world. [Nature→]( [When Brits Heard Grammatical Speech Errors, It Changed Their Heart Rate]( Listening to people speak incorrectly can activate a stress-response—a nonverbal means of gauging linguistic competence. [Journal of Neurolinguistics→]( [The Links Between Well-Being and Adjusting Our Life Goals]( What researchers found from a longitudinal study involving 305 people between the ages of 30 and 78. [Journal of Individual Differences→]( [A Starfish Is a Crawling Head]( How to make heads or tails of a star-shaped body plan. [Nature→]( [Oldest Black Hole Discovered Dating Back to 470 Million Years After the Big Bang]( The results confirm predictions that black holes began to exist at the dawn of the cosmos. [The Associated Press→]( [In a Jedi-Like Feat, Rats Can Move a Digital Object Using Just Their Brain]( Scientists found that rodents have quite the active imagination. [Science News→]( [Fructose May Be the Ultimate Driver of Obesity]( A new hypothesis accuses the simple sugar of wrecking energy metabolism. [Big Think→]( Experience the endless possibilities and deep human connections that science offers [JOIN TODAY]( [180 Pages of Impact From Cover To Cover]( 180 pages of stories to move you, people to inspire you, images to knock you sideways, and tips to try out for yourself. It’s hot off the press from [Imagine5](, an international eco-nonprofit making sustainable change contagious with planet-proof solutions and positive action. [GET YOUR COPY TODAY]( From The Porthole—short sharp looks at science [SOCIOLOGY]( [Do Homelessness Prevention Programs Work?]( The first evidence from a randomized controlled trial that financial assistance helps prevent homelessness. BY BRIAN A. JACOB Santa Clara County, California is one of the most affluent counties in the country. Encompassing the heart of Silicon Valley, it is home to many high-profile tech companies including Google, Apple, and Facebook. But this wealth comes with a cost; Santa Clara supports a growing number of people without a home. A 2019 study found nearly 10,000 people lacking housing, a [31 percent increase]( from 2017. The county had the fourth largest homeless population in the country in 2019, behind only New York, Los Angeles, and Seattle. The problem of homelessness is well-known, but the solutions are far from obvious. Social workers who interact with families in precarious housing situations have identified one promising approach known as targeted homelessness prevention, a data-driven approach to identifying families who might most benefit from immediate but short-term financial assistance. The total amount of assistance is modest, equivalent to roughly one or two months of rent for the average recipient. While this is popular among practitioners, there has been little rigorous research on the practice to date. The most compelling evidence comes from [a 2016 study]( in Chicago conducted by the [Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities]( at Notre Dame (LEO for short). While this study was encouraging, it had several limitations. It was non-experimental and retrospective, and conducted in a context (Chicago) with relatively low housing costs compared with places like New York and California. People offered emergency financial assistance were 81 percent less likely to become homeless. Seeking to more rigorously evaluate this approach, LEO researchers teamed up with a nonprofit organization in Santa Clara County, [Destination:Home](, that had been considering a targeted cash assistance approach. [The study](, published earlier this year in The Review of Economics and Statistics, evaluated individuals and families at imminent risk of being evicted or becoming homeless between July 2019 and December 2020. These families were ineligible for other prevention programs as they could not demonstrate the ability to pay rent in the future. A randomly selected subset of households were offered emergency financial assistance as well as non-financial services such as credit counseling and landlord dispute resolution. The control group only received the nonfinancial services. During the period of study, the average treatment household received about $2,000 to pay rent, utilities, and other housing-related expenses. [Like the story? Join Nautilus today]( So, what did they learn? The authors of the study, [David Phillips](, a research professor at LEO, and [James Sullivan](, a professor of economics and co-founder of LEO, found that people offered the emergency financial assistance were 81 percent less likely to become homeless within six months of enrollment and 73 percent less likely within 12 months. In our exchange below, Phillips and Sullivan answer some questions about what they learned from their collaboration with Destination:Home, and how it fits into the broader efforts to tackle homelessness in the United States. What sorts of interventions to alleviate homelessness have worked, and where do we still have gaps? If we look at homelessness interventions on a spectrum, we’d have prevention on one end and permanent supportive housing on the other. Permanent supportive housing provides long-term rental subsidies to people who are already homeless and has considerable evidence behind it. A [LEO study]( found that an expansion between 2008 and 2017 of the [HUD-VASH]( program—a federal effort to reduce veteran homelessness through the distribution of housing vouchers—cut homelessness among veterans in half. The lesson we can take from this is that these more intensive solutions are effective for chronically homeless people. But when we talk about this issue, we have to keep in mind that the experience of homelessness varies among the homeless population, so the solutions we offer need to reflect that. We now have evidence that targeted intervention for at-risk individuals works and we have evidence that permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless works. So, where we really need to build evidence is the space between those two points: Things like rapid rehousing subsidies and shelter diversion [programs aimed at helping newly homeless populations identify housing and avoid entering the shelter system]. Why is it so important to focus on prevention in addition to other efforts? The first and most important reason is the toll that homelessness takes on those who experience it. Once someone becomes homeless, they are immediately facing additional problems like finding housing, basic necessities, and healthcare. They are more likely to lose a job and have more frequent hospital visits. If we can prevent that suffering, we should. Temporary financial assistance seems like an expensive but temporary band-aid. Is it really worth it in the long-term? Financial assistance prevents homelessness rather than just delaying it and prevention is also less expensive. We conservatively estimate in our study that communities get $2.47 back in benefits per net dollar spent on emergency financial assistance. This frees up those dollars to go toward other supportive services, like those that help the chronically homeless. If this intervention is effective, why are homeless numbers still rising and what can be done? The challenge comes in offering a preventative measure to families that aren’t interacting with the system until it is too late. LEO is currently studying implementing a new risk assessment tool in Texas that could lead to a more equitable tool to use than the VI-SPDAT (the current tool used across much of the country). We know some factors increase one’s chance of becoming homeless, such as prior exposure to homelessness or being released from incarceration. If a public entity with access to that information and those populations were to take over an emergency financial assistance intervention, could they systematically and effectively offer the intervention to populations with a naturally higher risk of homelessness? A longer version of this [article]( was originally published in MIT Press Reader. Lead image: hvostik / Shutterstock More stories from Nautilus •How life really works]( • [Yes, we have free will. No, we absolutely do not]( EXCLUSIVE MEMBER CONTENT | [Explore Memberships→]( [The monsters are in your head.]( Download Monsters—our free Halloween ebook that explores the basis for some of humankind's oldest fears. Plus, find a special mystery discount inside. [Get the eBook.]( [DOWNLOAD NOW]( P.S. The chemist Marie Curie—the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, and the first person to win it twice—was born on this day in 1867. Hope Jahren wondered whether Curie should be considered the first woman scientist. “Does she count?” Jahren wrote. “After all, she viewed herself as more of an Artist.” “The scientific history of radium is beautiful,” Curie [wrote]( in 1921. “And this is proof that scientific work must be done for itself, for the beauty of science.” Today’s newsletter was written by Brian Gallagher Thanks for reading. [Tell us](mailto:brian.gallagher@nautil.us?subject=&body=) your thoughts on today’s note. Plus,[browse our archive]( of past print issues, and inspire a friend to sign up for [the Nautilus newsletter](. [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [Instagram]( Copyright © 2023 NautilusNext, All rights reserved.You were subscribed to the newsletter from [nautil.us](. Our mailing address is: NautilusNext360 W 36th Street, 7S,New York, NY 10018 Don't want to hear from us anymore? [Unsubscribe](