Homelessness is a Housing Problem

In our latest episode on “Homelessness is a Housing Problem: How Structural Factors Explain US Patterns” author Greg Colburn discussed his research that offers compelling evidence that homelessness at a city level (not to be confused with the individual level) is primarily a structural issue tied to housing markets. One of the most striking revelations from Colburn and his co-author Clayton Page Aldern’s research is the importance of distinguishing between individual risk factors and community-level causes of homelessness. While factors like addiction, mental illness, and poverty might explain who becomes homeless at an individual level, they fail to explain regional variations in rates of homelessness. This distinction is crucial: Seattle has five times more homelessness than Chicago not because Seattle has five times more addiction or mental illness, but because of fundamental differences in housing market conditions.

The data clearly shows that regions with high rents and low vacancy rates consistently have higher rates of homelessness. As Colburn puts it, “Every place that has low vacancies and high rents in the United States has a lot of homelessness.” This correlation is far stronger than any connection to mental illness rates, poverty levels, or even weather conditions. The simple reality is that accumulating enough money to afford $700 rent in a more affordable market is achievable through various means of support, but reaching $2,000 in high-cost cities becomes nearly impossible for vulnerable populations.

Colburn debunks two prevalent myths about regional homelessness differences: the weather theory and the “magnet” theory. While it seems intuitive that homeless populations would gravitate toward warmer climates, the evidence doesn’t support this. There are plenty of warm places with low homelessness rates and cold places with high rates. More importantly, research shows that homeless populations are overwhelmingly local—90% of people experiencing homelessness in California are from California. The idea that generous benefits attract people has “almost zero empirical support,” as low-income individuals rarely make interstate moves due to the disruption of social networks and the marginal benefits gained.

Perhaps most surprising is Colburn’s finding about housing cost burden (the percentage of income spent on housing). While being severely cost-burdened does increase an individual’s risk of homelessness, at a community level, high housing cost burdens don’t necessarily predict high homelessness rates. This counterintuitive finding is explained by the fact that Detroit has higher housing cost burdens than San Francisco—not because housing is more expensive, but because incomes are dramatically lower. The absolute cost of housing, rather than the cost burden percentage, better predicts regional homelessness rates.

Colburn advocates for a systems approach to homelessness that recognizes the connection between housing supply and crisis response systems. When housing is scarce, more people flow into homelessness than can exit the system, creating bottlenecks in shelters and other emergency responses. This explains why even effective homeless service systems appear to be failing—they’re overwhelmed by new inflows that exceed their capacity to house people.

The most transformative idea Colburn presents is reframing housing as infrastructure. This perspective shift could dramatically change how we fund and prioritize housing development. He notes the stark contrast between public acceptance of massive transit investments ($55 billion in Seattle) and the resistance to comparatively modest housing investments ($4 billion proposal that went “nowhere”). By recognizing housing as essential infrastructure—just like roads, bridges, and transit systems—we might overcome political resistance to the public investments needed to address the housing shortage.

Listen Now