Why LA has Failed Its Unhoused Population

Originally published 6/5/21

Abstract

As two cities with overwhelming unhoused populations, Los Angeles and New York City continue to struggle with adequately providing for its citizens. While the policies in LA mostly prioritize long-term affordable housing, NYC’s focus on temporary housing has successfully sheltered the majority of the unhoused population. LA’s lack of fundamental legal precedents and misaligned way of living also calls for more disruptive change. The combination of high rent, low wages, increasing gentrification, and the COVID-19 pandemic has only worsened the homeless crisis in both cities as the root of the problem remains largely unaddressed: the housing crisis.

This paper will address the different political approaches taken by these two prominent cities, a weighing of each approach, and finally, how a comparison can be used to highlight the potential of future policies.

Ways to Help in LA

• Educate

• Understanding the causes and destigmatizing homelessness allows for more appropriate, targeted aid

• Political Action

• Support the Garcetti Plan that aims to dedicate $791 million toward constructing homes for the unhoused

• Support Assembly Bill 71, a $2.4 million proposal toward homelessness and housing efforts in California

• Contact the L.A. City Council Member from your district on supporting these efforts

• Donate/Volunteer

• PATH: provides interim shelters, housing communities, and outreach teams

• Chrysalis: provides skillbuilding services to help clients find and retain jobs

• Good Shepherd Center: supports women and children in guiding them out of homelessness

• The People Concern: social service organization with a focus on a fully integrated system of support

---

Table of Contents

1. Context

   1. Causes of Homelessness 

   2. The Right to Shelter 

2. The L.A. Approach

   1. Proposition HHH 

   2. Rapid Rehousing Program 

   3. LAHSA 

   4. The Root 

3. The N.Y. Approach

   1. Callahan v. Carey 

   2. Safe Havens  

   3. The Journey Back Home 

   4. Preventing Evictions 

   5. HOME-STAT 

   6. The Root 

4. Comparing the Approaches        

   1. Differences 

   2. Similarities 

   3. Solutions 

5. Conclusion      

6. Bibliography     

Context

To set up an appropriate comparison, there needs to be adequate context of the current situation of homelessness. Los Angeles’s annual unhoused count in June 2020 showed a number of 66,433 people without permanent housing, a 12.7% increase since 2019’s report (16). Of that number, 75% are living unsheltered and on the streets, and 25% are mentally ill. While many attribute the rising number to LA’s temperate, forgiving outdoor conditions, 75% of the population lived in the city before losing their homes. This means that unhoused people are not merely flocking to LA. because of its climate — a common myth — but because LA’s internal problems and economic policies make it difficult for low-income families to stay afloat. In essence, the root of LA’s issue is internal, and it will require proactive measures to counteract and prevent. Undoubtedly, COVID-19’s impact in the previous year will have rippling consequences, leaving tens of thousands of low-wage workers without homes over the next three years, according to a model projected from the 2008 financial crisis (23).

Though New York shows slightly lower numbers with 60,422 unhoused people in April 2020, the city still projects an increase in homelessness, the highest rate since the Great Depression (1). Unlike Los Angeles, only 5% of, or 4,000, unhoused people are unsheltered, with the rest living in shelters or temporary housing. While a 2019 city survey showed that these numbers could be higher than initially believed with still a long way to go in “solving” the homeless crisis, NY can serve as a model for homeless policies.

These slight differences in severity bring context into their respective policies, but the problems both cities face are similar and demonstrate a pressing need for support. Combined, NY and LA makeup 40.6% of the U.S. unhoused population. While NY has been able to house many of its unhoused population, LA is struggling.

Causes of Homelessness

In both cities, the main causes of homelessness are a combination of insufficient, low wages, a lack of affordable housing, and gentrification. As poorer communities are rebuilt to fit middle or upper class tastes, families who can no longer afford to live in their homes are displaced and have trouble finding cheaper places (7). One misconception is that poverty is the leading reason for homelessness, but it is specifically “being poor in a place where ferocious competition for a severely constrained supply of homes drives up rents” (18). For example, while Detroit has a larger population below the poverty line, its unhoused population is still smaller than that of New York’s. In fact, when a city’s average rent reaches 22% of the median income, then homelessness will rise. Given that LA is at 49%, it is reasonable to conclude that a major driving factor of homelessness is the housing crisis. Other factors also include mental illness, drug addiction, and lack of employment skills. City -wide deinstitutionalization of psychiatric hospitals and asylums have also resulted in higher displacement of people on the streets. As city governments lobby for policies that leave many in poverty and homelessness, they need to provide safety nets for the people being affected.

A discussion about homelessness should also address the systemic racism that has disproportionately affected the African-American community. Despite only making up 8% of the LA population, African-Americans make up 34% of the unhoused population. According to the Homeless Services Authority, this is attributed to discrimination in housing, health care, justice and economic policies (16). Not only have decades of red-lining, generational wealth gaps, and an unequal standard of living set back people of color, but a black American is also less likely to be paid at the same rate as a white American with the same education. Black Americans are also more likely to be affected by gentrification, as freeways built into black communities commonly displaced families into homelessness. These multiple factors cause homelessness to disproportionately affect oppressed minorities. As a result, reformative policy should also address systemic racism and homeless relief should be able to support a diverse population.

The Right to Shelter

Though homelessness is never optimal, being sheltered improves the standard of living; unsheltered people do not have access to bathrooms, showers, suitable sleeping conditions, and many other basic necessities (5). Furthermore, they’re especially vulnerable to diseases such as typhus, typhoid, and Hepatitis A. Unsheltered people are also more likely to both perpetrate and be victims of violence, specifically sexual violence toward women (3). Movements such as the #SheDoes campaign arose due to outcries that the LA city government was inactive in keeping its unhoused women protected from sexual assault. Most recently, the COVID-19 epidemic has also revealed key vulnerabilities of the unsheltered: unhoused people living in LA County were 50% more likely to die of COVID than the general population (22).

In addition to being a primary driver for homelessness, systemic racism also affects the quality of support services offered. After receiving homeless services, black youth were twice as likely to fall back into homelessness due to incompatible and unequal treatment (21).

Above all, the right to shelter is a fundamental human right; all humans deserve a safe, clean and stable living situation. According to the United Nations, homelessness is a “cruel and inhumane” humanitarian crisis that requires proactive efforts from both national and local governments. Institutions that perpetuate and have the means to solve homelessness also possess the responsibility to take direct action, which is why LA and NY should be going further to both alleviate and solve homelessness.

The LA Approach

In response to the growing homeless crisis, Mayor Eric Garcetti initially aimed to build emergency shelters in all 15 districts. His ambitious goals were soon halted by red tape, or bureaucratic hurdles, and widespread community fear of unhoused people moving into their neighborhoods. In fact, 80% of the proposed emergency shelters have been postponed, demonstrating resistance and difficulty in implementing short-term efforts like those of New York (2). Alternatively, Los Angeles seems to focus more on prioritizing long-term affordable housing, yet the fallout hasn’t exactly been successful. This can be due to the fact that there has not been a sustained effort from the city; a 2018 audit showed that LA spends $5,000 per unhoused citizen, compared to the $17,000 that New York spends (15). In general, LA’s homeless effort is unfocused, and its policies are not as efficient or effective as intended.

Proposition HHH

To be fair, the 2018 audit did not take into account the recent bill, Measure HHH, a $1.2 billion tax hike passed in November 2016 that was intended to provide first aid, rent money assistance, and expand bridge housing, or temporary, transitional housing. The main goal was to construct 10,000 units over the next decade for bridge housing, but nearly three years after its passing, the first unit was only opened in January 2020.

The problem with this plan is its insufficient funds, long building period, and lack of support in emergency projects. After years of uncompleted projects and meager aid being provided, LA Chief Accountant Ron Galperin released an October 2019 audit that aimed to explain the gaps in the policy. First, he demonstrated that rising construction costs, estimated to cost more than $700,000 per 41-unit building, will affect the utility of the bill. Additionally, the city sold many of the HHH bonds before the proceeds would be used, costing at least $5.2 million in unnecessary interest payments. Galperin predicts that these setbacks will only allow 7,640 of the proposed 10,000 units to be built (8).

The funds intended for this project are also largely untouched, as supportive building projects take three to six years to complete. Given the inhumanity of the conditions unhoused people face, construction time is a pertinent issue. Long-term projects are absolutely necessary, but the lengthy waiting period in between needs to be supplemented by immediate relief.

Instead, Galperin suggests that the finite, public money should “find a way to get people into shelter as quickly as possible to relieve some of that suffering we see happening on our streets,” which can be alleviated through temporary shelters, storage facilities, bathroom and shower facilities, and other service centers (9). In essence, though the idea behind Measure HHH seemed adequate, the actual reality of fund distribution and execution disappoints.

Rapid Rehousing Program

Another prominent program implemented in recent years is the rapid rehousing program, which provides short-term vouchers, or subsidies, that cover security deposits and the first few months of rent. This program is funded by 16% of the recent sales tax increase that brings $73 million a year to the unhoused population (17). Though recipients of this program agree that having shelter is a far better option than living unsheltered, they struggle with paying rent after the assistance expires. According to the Homeless Services Authority, nearly 18,000 people have benefitted from rapid rehousing. While there aren’t thorough records of those who have gone through the program, an estimated 7% returned back to homeless shelters.

Rapid rehousing, while helpful to some, has cracks in its implementation due to the lack of widespread support. For those who have the financial means and skills to find a sufficiently paying job, the program works, but this program is not a suitable plan for all unhoused people. In New York, a similar program ran between 2005 and 2011 proved that the temporary decreases in unsheltered homeless did not last. Ralph Nunez, president of a public policy think tank, called it a “nightmare… creating a great number of problems that they’ve never been able to get their arms around again.” The theory of pushing L.A.’s unhoused population to be more self-sufficient is sound, but current circumstances call for multi-pronged, short-term relief.

LAHSA

In the same audit mentioned earlier, the effectiveness of the Los Angeles Homelessless Service Authority (LAHSA) is put into question (9). Galperin’s report claims that the outreach done by this program is too reactive and not proactive, resulting in duplicative visits tied to encampment cleanups. Additionally, outreach workers are tasked with signing unhoused people up for government services, but given that the programs are mostly intended for specific groups such as veterans or families, the vast majority of unhoused people—single adults—are deprived of sufficient resources. In general, LAHSA lacks its own autonomy to make decisions and help; it needs third parties like the city government to make available living spaces.

The Root of the L.A. Crisis

Focusing on long-term issues isn't inherently a bad direction, but many of the proposed solutions for homelessness end up to be temporary. This is especially true because of the underlying housing crisis that no amount of relief will solve. To illustrate the issue in LA, as Garcetti moved 380 people off the street each week, 480 more people were joining the unhoused population (15). The influx of people losing their homes and living on the streets comes at an overwhelming rate that negates the positive effects of any temporary efforts. Thus, in addition to short-term relief, LA should begin to address the root of the problem: the housing crisis.

That’s not to say this issue hasn’t been attempted to be resolved in the past. In early 2019, California governor Gavin Newsom set a goal of building 3.5 million units over the next seven years and proposed $1.7 billion to incentivize housing production (14). These goals, in the form of Senate Bill 50, were intended to set restrictions on density by denying transportation funds to local governments that failed to meet them. As such an ambitious plan, the zoned land needed to build these homes were insufficient and would require a new form of high-density housing.

This proposed new way of life is what caused the bill to be shot down. Though SB 50 would’ve boosted California’s housing stock over time, it died in committee because it was considered a threat to local control. Many constituents also feared the bill, as it would’ve caused disruptive change. Currently, California and LA enjoy sprawling single-family houses; the bill calls for high-density apartments. Reihan Salam, President of the Manhattan Institute, describes this as a fear of “the transformation of large swaths of Los Angeles into unsanitary homeless encampments” (15). Many people are understandably opposed to the transformation that will change their way of living, but it’s a privilege to prefer single-family housing. In reality, the thousands of unhoused people deserve LA’s attention and sacrifice.

Recent developments include LA Mayor Garcetti’s $1 billion plan to address homelessness, beginning with transitional homes built in February.

The New York Approach

New York’s primary focus on the right to shelter and short-term emergency relief has allowed the majority of its unhoused population to receive shelter, while still putting forward prevention-first policies. The number of unsheltered people has never fallen below 2,300, though record levels have been reached under Mayor Bill de Blasio’s term (20).

Overall though, the unhoused population has declined for two years in a row. This can be attributed to multiple factors and policies that differ from LA. For starters, the 2018 audit mentioned earlier showed that NY spent around $17,000 per unhoused resident, helping nearly 2,500 people off the streets and onto temporary or permanent housing since 2016. From proactive measures to unique support, New York can serve as a model for cities dealing with homelessness.

Callahan v. Carey

In the 1970s, when modern homelessness first arose in New York City, a class action lawsuit was brought by lawyer Robert Hayes against the city and state. He represented unhoused men, including lead plaintiff Robert Callahan, who was suffering from alcoholism, in bringing attention to Article XVII of the NY State Constitution that states “the aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state and by such of its subdivisions…” (4). It became a landmark case that agreed on a consent decree that NY is obligated to provide shelter for unhoused men. This decree was later expanded by Eldredge v. Koch (1982) to extend to unhoused women, and by Koster v. Webb (1982) to unhoused families.

This case was fundamental in the amount of shelters that have been provided by the state, though it has been violated multiple times. Hayes later founded the Coalition for the Homeless, a New York advocacy group for the unhoused. Callahan v. Carey set a unique legal precedent for New York and its homeless policies for years to come. 

Safe Havens

In addition to traditional dormitory-style shelters, New York also offers alternative housing through safe havens. These shelters are less selective, have less regulations and were first launched in July 2017. Most significantly, individuals are not required to be sober in these safe havens. This project also offers case management, mental health, and substance abuse services. Currently, there are 11 safe havens in NYC with 550 beds; this is a relatively small number relative to the amount of unhoused people. Thus, while safe havens offer shelter to those who don’t typically receive access to shelters, there are still limitations to its use.

The process to switch from a traditional shelter to safe havens can be difficult. For one, safe havens are funded by the United States Department of Housing, which requires entrants to have either a physical or mental disability—including addiction—potentially cutting off support to some groups. Additionally, those who want to move into safe havens must be confirmed by outreach workers that they are living on the streets. This usually means that the person in question must be spotted at least three times, a confusing and tedious process (20). Safe havens are not panaceas to unsheltered homelessness, but they have potential to be better alternatives given sufficient numbers.

The Journey Back Home

In December 2019, De Blasio announced “The Journey Back Home” plan that aims to create 1,000 permanent apartments and 1,000 more safe haven beds (6). By emphasizing a moral imperative, the goal is to end long term street homelessness in NYC in the next five years. In addition to the new building units, the plan also includes delivering new health resources, providing outreach response, individualizing services through innovative technology, and expanding diversion and outreach in the subway system.

Above all, the plan hopes to create pathways to permanent home ownership. One initiative aims to work with the Department of Housing and Development to convert privately-owned, vacant properties into apartments that can be used. Others include connecting unsheltered residents with rental assistance and streamlining placement processes.

Preventing Evictions

As evictions are a major cause to homelessness, New York City is the first American city to announce Right To Counsel (RTC) in 2017. By giving tenants with incomes lower than 200% of the federal poverty line access to an attorney, legal representation has been mostly successful in preventing homelessness. For example, since 2013, the rate of eviction has decreased by 40%, and more than 400,000 New Yorkers are estimated to have been positively impacted by this law (10). This measure shows that NYC is not merely focusing on emergency short-term relief, but prioritizes its prevention-first policy.

HOME-STAT

The Department of Homeless Services in NY implemented the Homeless Outreach & Mobile Engagement Street Action Services, or HOME-STAT, that consistently canvasses all five boroughs and reach out to unhoused people living on the streets. They are also intended to provide aftercare services that can help individuals transition to permanent housing. Some successes of this organization include tripling the city’s investment to $140 million, tripling the number of safe haven beds, building the city’s first named list of homeless individuals, and establishing joint outreach with hospitals and government agencies.

The Root of the NY Crisis

While New York City can be credited with moving the majority of its unhoused population into shelters, which staves off the worst effects of living on the streets, there are also areas to improve upon. NYC has invested in homeless prevention, yet—like LA—still avoids the central issue at hand: the housing crisis.

Coalition for the Homeless Policy Director Giselle Routhier states “we can’t solve homelessness without addressing the affordability and stability crisis.” In that regard, more effort needs to be put into creating more affordable housing units. For example, of the de Blasio plan to create 300k apartments, the city has only hit half that goal, with less than a sixth being accessible to low-income families (13). This means that more housing units will not necessarily result in lower rates of homelessness, as impoverished demographics are not sufficiently supported.

Because building new apartments can be too expensive, a cheaper solution for the government is to finance nonprofits in clearing and rebuilding unused spaces. This would allow for cheaper options for low-income families, getting closer to solving the housing crisis than simply building more units. Otherwise, as a result of the lack of action at the roots of the issue, more than half of the 33,000 people New York claims to have moved out of homelessness eventually fell back into it (13).

Another dilemma faced by city developers is the minority of unhoused people who refuse shelter—whether that is due to mental illness, drug addiction or personal preference. Shelter is sometimes enforced, but the morality of those actions are questionable. Simultaneously, the laws that prosecute unhoused people dwelling in certain public areas implicitly make it difficult for them to stay unsheltered. However, given that only 5% of the unhoused demographic is unsheltered in N.Y.C, it is within reach to implement support programs that build trust with this minority community.

Comparing the Approaches

In this section, I will be reviewing the similarities, differences and potential, optimal solutions for both cities. While the differences between LA and NYC show the areas of improvement that Los Angeles needs to follow, the similarities in the homeless crisis indicate larger issues at hand.

Differences

Due to the fundamental differences in goals between LA and NYC’s policies, New York is more successful in treating its existing unhoused population. The disparities in percentages (75% in LA versus 5% in NYC) of unsheltered homeless are reflective of this difference. While LA struggles with being able to provide its residents with enough shelters, NYC has prioritized shelter—even if temporary—for its unhoused population.

Why exactly is it so important to provide shelter? According to physician Marc Siegel at NYU Langone Health, while diseases “were still a problem... they weren’t nearly as severe as when so much of the unhoused population was bedless” (19). Essentially, while policies should focus on long-term solutions, it is equally important to pay attention and assist those in homelessness as soon as possible. Additionally, living in a stable, clean location makes it easier for doctors to locate and treat unhoused people who are suffering from these diseases.

This difference also manifests because of the early establishment of constitutional rights that shape not only politicians’ perspectives and ambitions but also voter expectations. The right to shelter legislation established in New York set a unique precedent that LA does not have; as a result, lawmakers are less likely to follow or be motivated to provide shelters. Activists do not have a legal precedent to wield over the government in case of neglect. Contrarily, in NYC, many lawsuits were able to follow the ethos of the original Callahan v. Carey case in keeping the local government responsible for its unsheltered population.

The existing differences between the two cities also affect how receptive citizens are to change. Given the existing urban sprawl—low-density, unplanned and mostly residential development—in Los Angeles, a majority of voters and politicians are hesitant to let go of the single-family homes and space that they currently enjoy. This type of urban planning doesn’t consider the greater good; rather, it translates to required driving, wasting usable space and creating unnecessary pollution (11).

On the other hand, New York City resembles the typical, compact city space with densely-packed buildings. These differences in urban planning make it easier for New York to pass laws to either build new units or refurbish old ones that are accessible to lower-income families. For example, LA’s Senate Bill 50 would’ve eased the housing crisis, but because of rampant fear of losing urban sprawl and fear of unhoused people entering their neighborhoods, it was rejected by the council. Proposition HHH and further policies that attempt to touch on the housing crisis will continue to be held back because of the limited space in LA for more buildings. If LA wants to better support its unhoused population and solve the housing crisis, more disruptive change is required than in New York.

Similarities

The similarities the two cities share in its homeless outreach is reflective of the problems plaguing both cities and give insight on how to solve the root of the problem.

First, the biggest struggle of both cities is the transition from temporary housing to permanent housing. Even in New York, where the majority of the unhoused are sheltered, most cannot afford to keep their rents. As mentioned earlier in the paper, a rapid rehousing program was used in both cities. By subsidizing the rental costs for a few months, it aimed to give unhoused people the support and time needed to find a job. While this method did work for some, it wasn’t able to provide enough to others. As a result, many who went through the program ended up back in homelessness.

By looking at the original causes for homelessness, LA and NYC share similarities. Both are cities that, even with lower poverty rates than other cities, have average rental rates higher than 22% of the median household income. The combination of low wages and high rents not only causes homelessness, but keeps those on the streets trapped. It prevents government aid and programs, such as rapid rehousing, from bringing homeless people back into stable housing.

Potential Solutions

By analyzing both the successes and failures of current policies, I’ve outlined a selection of optimal policies for city governments to adopt. Beginning to solve the homeless crisis can be completed through two parts: first by solving the basic problem of homelessness through increasing the supply of houses, and then by addressing more specific issues, such as sheltering and providing aid to unhoused people with mental illnesses or drug addiction.

Though nonprofits and activists are crucial in providing support, conventional public policy is the most effective method to root out the cause. Reforms that increase the supply of housing and include low-cost housing that can still meet the needs of the poor can stem the rapid influx of people entering homelessness. Meanwhile, more steps can be made—especially in Los Angeles—to provide shelter with less regulations and steps. Emergency relief needs to be prioritized as people are currently suffering the effects of exposure.

In addition to solving the housing crisis, cities need to invest in alternative support. As New York City showed, paying for lawyers to represent those faced with eviction can help prevent the fall into homelessness. Not only should low-income families receive direct financial support, but this legal support can serve as a safety net for those who are on the edge of losing their residencies.

Another form of policy that governments can emphasize more is actively preparing unhoused people to receive jobs. USC Social Entrepreneurship professor Adlai Wertman started an organization called Chrysalis, an organization that offers case management, skill development and job search assistance (12). This form of service is more individualized and provides flexibility in each person’s needs. It also sets unhoused people up for permanent jobs, income, and as a result, housing. Though some shelters do offer case management, having the government either set up or better fund organizations such as Chrysalis will allow for more long-term support.

Conclusion

As cities with increasingly severe cases, Los Angeles and New York have the obligation to provide short-term relief and shelter, while actively developing policies that will solve the housing crisis.

---

Bibliography

1. Basic Facts About Homelessness: New York City. www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/basic-facts-about-homelessness-new-york-city/.

2. Beason, Tyron, et al. Homelessness Is a Crisis in California. Why Are 2020 Candidates Mostly Ignoring It? 10 June 2019, www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-homelessness-presidential-campaign-20190610-story.html.

3. Cagle, Katie. Crimes Involving Homeless People as Perpetrators and Victims Both Increased. spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/news/2019/05/07/crime-among-the-homeless-explodes-in-los-angeles.

4. “The Callahan Legacy: Callahan v. Carey and the Legal Right to Shelter.” Coalition For The Homeless, www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/our-programs/advocacy/legal-victories/the-callahan-legacy-callahan-v-carey-and-the-legal-right-to-shelter/.

5. Column: Rats at the Police Station, Filth on L.A. Streets - Scenes from the Collapse of a City That's Lost Control. 1 June 2019, www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-skid-row-rats-trash-20190601-story.html.

6. De Blasio, Bill. The Journey Home: An Action Plan to End Long-Term Street Homelessness.

7. Gentrification and Dislocation of Los Angeles' Urban Poor Leading to Homelessness. www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/gentrification-and-dislocation-los-angeles-urban-poor-leading-homeles/1030941/.

8. LAist Staff in News on October 8, 2019 10:40 AM. “Three Years And Zero Homeless Housing Units Later, LA's Auditor Looks At Prop HHH Money.” LAist, laist.com/2019/10/08/prop_hhh_homeless_housing_audit.php.

9. Matt Tinoco in News on February 4, 2019 1:00 PM. “LA's Chief Accountant Wants To Know Why All The Anti-Homelessness Money Isn't Being Spent.” LAist, laist.com/2019/02/04/proposition_HHH_audit_los_angeles_homeless.php.

10. “Mayor De Blasio Announces Record-Breaking 41 Percent Decrease in Evictions Citywide.” The Official Website of the City of New York, 24 Feb. 2020, www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/094-20/amid-nationwide-increases-mayor-de-blasio-record-breaking-41-percent-decrease-in.

11. Murphy, Douglas. “Where Is the World's Most Sprawling City?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Apr. 2017, www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/apr/19/where-world-most-sprawling-city-los-angeles.

12. “Our Services.” Chrysalis, www.changelives.org/about-us/our-services/.

13. Ricciulli, Valeria. “Housing, Rental Vouchers, Outreach: Can NYC Fix Its Homeless Crisis?” Curbed NY, Curbed NY, 25 Feb. 2020, ny.curbed.com/2020/2/25/21146143/homelessness-new-york-city-how-to-fix.

14. Salam, Reihan. “Gavin Newsom's Big Idea.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 15 Feb. 2019, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/governor-newsom-addresses-californias-housing-crisis/582892/.

15. Salam, Reihan. “Los Angeles Is in Crisis. So Why Isn't It Building More Housing?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 June 2019, www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/how-solve-los-angeless-homelessness-crisis/591976/.

16. Scott, Anna. Homelessness In Los Angeles County Rises Sharply. 12 June 2020, www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875888864/homelessness-in-los-angeles-county-rises-sharply.

17. Scott, Anna. “Rental Vouchers for L.A.'s Homeless Provide Short-Term Fix For Long-Term Problem.” NPR, NPR, 24 Apr. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/04/24/716743009/rental-vouchers-for-las-homeless-provide-short-term-fix-for-long-term-problem.

18. Siegel, Jacob. Managed Obsolescence: Homelessness in America's Gilded Cities. 20 Feb. 2019, americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/02/managed-obsolescence-homelessness-in-americas-gilded-cities/.

19. Siegel, Marc. “Op-Ed: Los Angeles Should Look to New York for Answers to Its Homeless Problem.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 17 July 2019, www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-07-16/homelessness-los-angeles-new-york.

20. Stewart, Nikita. “New York's Toughest Homeless Problem.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/nyregion/homeless-nyc.html.

21. Unity Care. Systemic Racism Worsens Homelessness for People of Color. www.unitycare.org/systemic-racism-worsens-homelessness-for-people-of-color/.

22. Oreskes, Benjamin, and Doug Smith. “L.A.'s Homeless Are 50% More Likely to Die If They Get COVID. Now They're a Vaccine Priority.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Mar. 2021, www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-03-12/la-homeless-50-percent-more-likely-die-covid.

23. Smith, Doug. “COVID-19 Job Losses Will Worsen L.A. Homelessness by 2023, New Report Says.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 12 Jan. 2021, www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-12/new-report-foresees-tens-of-thousands-losing-homes-by-2023.