A New Way to Measure Doubled-Up Homelessness
May 1, 2022
May 1, 2022
Article: Quantifying Doubled-Up Homelessness: Presenting a New Measure Using U.S. Census Microdata
Authors: Molly K. Richard, Julie Dworkin, Katherine Grace Rule, Suniya Farooqui, Zachary Glendening and Sam Carlson
Published Online: 17 Jan 2022
DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2021.1981976
Tags: homelessness; living arrangements; housing insecurity; affordability; demographics; American Community Survey (ACS)
Authors: Molly K. Richard, Julie Dworkin, Katherine Grace Rule, Suniya Farooqui, Zachary Glendening and Sam Carlson
Published Online: 17 Jan 2022
DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2021.1981976
Tags: homelessness; living arrangements; housing insecurity; affordability; demographics; American Community Survey (ACS)
It is well established that individuals experiencing housing insecurity are also at risk of homelessness, which is typically understood as the bottom of the spectrum of housing problems.[1] But while there is consensus on how to define and measure many housing insecurities, how to define and measure homelessness in the U.S. is still unsettled. The result is that forms of “hidden” homelessness such as doubling up are not incorporated into official estimates of total homelessness. This can impact understandings of the problem and, ultimately, policies to address it.
A gap in HUD’s definition of homelessness
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines the homeless as those who lack a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”[2] By this definition, HUD conducts one-night point-in-time (PIT) counts of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness and produces 1-year administrative reports of sheltered homelessness.[3]
To avoid these forms of homelessness, or when shelter space is inaccessible, many people who lose or cannot afford housing share a home with others, known as doubling up. People who double up do not meet HUD’s definition of homeless and are not included in HUD’s estimates. As a result, methods for measuring doubled-up homelessness in the United States have been limited to annual counts of school-age children, without information on their characteristics.[4]
However, as Molly K. Richard, Julie Dworkin, Katherine Grace Rule, Suniya Farooqui, Zachary Glendening, and Sam Carlson make clear in their recently published article “Quantifying Double-Up Homelessness: Presenting a New Measure Using U.S. Census Microdata,” doubling up is widespread, can strain hosts and guests, and should be more widely recognized as a form of homelessness in the U.S.
The risks of doubling up
Qualitative research describes potential benefits of doubling up, where sharing resources and costs can support the stability of low-income families.[5] However, it also highlights living situations characterized by conflict, insecurity, and lack of autonomy. Individuals and families who are doubling up do not have legal rights to their tenancy and can be asked to leave at any time. Children’s education can also be disrupted by frequent moves, crowding, and unwelcoming environments.[6]
Although people in these arrangements can share resources, they may experience increased strain on income and space,[7] with evidence for increases in food insecurity, especially for children.[8] Doubling up and overcrowding is also associated with poor mental and physical health.[9] Of particular relevance: doubling up and overcrowding can make infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, more transmittable.[10]
New measures, new findings
For the purposes of their research, the authors consider doubled-up homeless persons to be poor or near-poor individuals in a poor or near-poor household (at or below 125% of a geographically adjusted poverty threshold) who are either a relative that the household head does not customarily take responsibility for (based on age and relationship) or a nonrelative who is not a partner and not formally sharing in household costs (not roomers or roommates). Single adult children and relatives over 65 may be seen as a householder’s responsibility, so such cases are included only if the household is overcrowded.
By this definition, the authors were able to develop a measure to annually estimate doubled-up homelessness for the entire U.S. population. Their method uses publicly available American Community Survey (ACS) data and can be used to estimate doubled-up homelessness in the total U.S. population, in demographic subpopulations, and for individual states, cities, and other local levels.
The authors conclude that approximately 3.7 million people in the U.S., or 1.2% of the population, doubled up in 2019, which is more than six times the number found in the January 2019 PIT count of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. They also find significant differences in doubling up by geography, race and ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, school enrollment, and employment status as compared to literal homelessness. For instance, rates of Hispanic/Latinx doubled-up homelessness were high as compared to their rates of literal homelessness. Among the four census regions, people in the West were most likely to be doubled up, followed by those in the South, then the Northeast, then the Midwest. Rates of literal homelessness are also high on the West Coast, but they tend to be lower in Southern states. And while rates of doubling up are relatively lower in the Northeast, rates of sheltered homelessness are especially high in this region.
A gap in HUD’s definition of homelessness
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines the homeless as those who lack a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”[2] By this definition, HUD conducts one-night point-in-time (PIT) counts of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness and produces 1-year administrative reports of sheltered homelessness.[3]
To avoid these forms of homelessness, or when shelter space is inaccessible, many people who lose or cannot afford housing share a home with others, known as doubling up. People who double up do not meet HUD’s definition of homeless and are not included in HUD’s estimates. As a result, methods for measuring doubled-up homelessness in the United States have been limited to annual counts of school-age children, without information on their characteristics.[4]
However, as Molly K. Richard, Julie Dworkin, Katherine Grace Rule, Suniya Farooqui, Zachary Glendening, and Sam Carlson make clear in their recently published article “Quantifying Double-Up Homelessness: Presenting a New Measure Using U.S. Census Microdata,” doubling up is widespread, can strain hosts and guests, and should be more widely recognized as a form of homelessness in the U.S.
The risks of doubling up
Qualitative research describes potential benefits of doubling up, where sharing resources and costs can support the stability of low-income families.[5] However, it also highlights living situations characterized by conflict, insecurity, and lack of autonomy. Individuals and families who are doubling up do not have legal rights to their tenancy and can be asked to leave at any time. Children’s education can also be disrupted by frequent moves, crowding, and unwelcoming environments.[6]
Although people in these arrangements can share resources, they may experience increased strain on income and space,[7] with evidence for increases in food insecurity, especially for children.[8] Doubling up and overcrowding is also associated with poor mental and physical health.[9] Of particular relevance: doubling up and overcrowding can make infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, more transmittable.[10]
New measures, new findings
For the purposes of their research, the authors consider doubled-up homeless persons to be poor or near-poor individuals in a poor or near-poor household (at or below 125% of a geographically adjusted poverty threshold) who are either a relative that the household head does not customarily take responsibility for (based on age and relationship) or a nonrelative who is not a partner and not formally sharing in household costs (not roomers or roommates). Single adult children and relatives over 65 may be seen as a householder’s responsibility, so such cases are included only if the household is overcrowded.
By this definition, the authors were able to develop a measure to annually estimate doubled-up homelessness for the entire U.S. population. Their method uses publicly available American Community Survey (ACS) data and can be used to estimate doubled-up homelessness in the total U.S. population, in demographic subpopulations, and for individual states, cities, and other local levels.
The authors conclude that approximately 3.7 million people in the U.S., or 1.2% of the population, doubled up in 2019, which is more than six times the number found in the January 2019 PIT count of sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. They also find significant differences in doubling up by geography, race and ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, school enrollment, and employment status as compared to literal homelessness. For instance, rates of Hispanic/Latinx doubled-up homelessness were high as compared to their rates of literal homelessness. Among the four census regions, people in the West were most likely to be doubled up, followed by those in the South, then the Northeast, then the Midwest. Rates of literal homelessness are also high on the West Coast, but they tend to be lower in Southern states. And while rates of doubling up are relatively lower in the Northeast, rates of sheltered homelessness are especially high in this region.
Implications
These new estimates of the number of people experiencing doubled-up homelessness should help guide decisions regarding resource allocation for shelter and services, rental assistance and prevention, and the development of affordable housing. The extent of doubling up in the total population also suggests that efforts to encourage HUD to expand its definition of homelessness are warranted. Although homeless advocates may be concerned about expanding eligibility for homeless services when resources are already scarce, the authors suggest that estimates of doubling up cab support calls for increased and varied funding.
The study also has timely implications given the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on homeless shelters, household income, and housing stability. The authors draw on recent research to suggest that increasing our understanding of doubling up may help address COVID-19-related health disparities and prevent similar disparities in the future.[11] Additionally, policies to support housing affordability may be crucial public health measures not only to avoid sheltered and unsheltered homelessness but to mitigate involuntary doubling up.
The authors also discuss implications for equity in homelessness prevention and intervention across racial and ethnic groups. For example, given higher rates of doubling up among Hispanic/Latinx individuals relative to their rates of literal homelessness, the authors suggest that housing and homelessness assistance programs consider how their designs may contribute to disparities.
These new estimates of the number of people experiencing doubled-up homelessness should help guide decisions regarding resource allocation for shelter and services, rental assistance and prevention, and the development of affordable housing. The extent of doubling up in the total population also suggests that efforts to encourage HUD to expand its definition of homelessness are warranted. Although homeless advocates may be concerned about expanding eligibility for homeless services when resources are already scarce, the authors suggest that estimates of doubling up cab support calls for increased and varied funding.
The study also has timely implications given the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on homeless shelters, household income, and housing stability. The authors draw on recent research to suggest that increasing our understanding of doubling up may help address COVID-19-related health disparities and prevent similar disparities in the future.[11] Additionally, policies to support housing affordability may be crucial public health measures not only to avoid sheltered and unsheltered homelessness but to mitigate involuntary doubling up.
The authors also discuss implications for equity in homelessness prevention and intervention across racial and ethnic groups. For example, given higher rates of doubling up among Hispanic/Latinx individuals relative to their rates of literal homelessness, the authors suggest that housing and homelessness assistance programs consider how their designs may contribute to disparities.
About the article:
The authors conducted analyses in SAS version 9.4 and provide both SAS and open-source R code for reproducing the measure in the supplemental materials attached to the article. The full article and its supplemental materials are available here.
To read more from Housing Policy Debate, including from our issue on Housing Policy and Climate Change, visit our journal page on Taylor & Francis Online.
The authors conducted analyses in SAS version 9.4 and provide both SAS and open-source R code for reproducing the measure in the supplemental materials attached to the article. The full article and its supplemental materials are available here.
To read more from Housing Policy Debate, including from our issue on Housing Policy and Climate Change, visit our journal page on Taylor & Francis Online.
About the authors:
Molly K. Richard is a PhD student in community research and action at Vanderbilt University in the Department of Human and Organizational Development.
Julie Dworkin is Director of Policy for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
Katherine Grace Rule is a graduate student in the Community Development and Action program at Vanderbilt University in the Department of Human and Organizational Development.
Suniya Farooqui is a senior data analyst with the Social IMPACT Research Center at Heartland Alliance.
Zachary Glendening is a PhD candidate in community research and action at Vanderbilt University in the Department of Human and Organizational Development.
Sam Carlson is the manager of research and outreach at Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
Molly K. Richard is a PhD student in community research and action at Vanderbilt University in the Department of Human and Organizational Development.
Julie Dworkin is Director of Policy for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
Katherine Grace Rule is a graduate student in the Community Development and Action program at Vanderbilt University in the Department of Human and Organizational Development.
Suniya Farooqui is a senior data analyst with the Social IMPACT Research Center at Heartland Alliance.
Zachary Glendening is a PhD candidate in community research and action at Vanderbilt University in the Department of Human and Organizational Development.
Sam Carlson is the manager of research and outreach at Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
|
|
[1] 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), pp. 291–308.
[2] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2009). Homeless emergency assistance and rapid transition to Housing Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-22, Section 1003).
[3] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020a, December). The 2019 annual homeless assessment report to Congress, part 1. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020b, September). The 2018 annual homeless assessment report to Congress, part 2. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2018-AHAR-Part-2.pdf.
[4] U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Homeless student enrollment data by Local Education Agency-School Year 2016-27 EdFacts data documentation: Appendix B: Identified data anomalies. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/school-status-data.html; U.S. Department of Education. (2020). EDFacts data files. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/school-status-data.html.
[5] Bush, H., & Shinn, M. (2017). "Families’ experiences of doubling up after homelessness." Cityscape, 19(3), pp. 331–356; Cusack, M., & Montgomery, A. E. (2019). "Examining the risk factors and needs of veterans involuntarily doubling-up with family or friends." Housing and Society, 46(3), pp. 144–156; Skobba, K., & Goetz, E. G. (2015). "Doubling up and the erosion of social capital among very low-income households." International Journal of Housing Policy, 15(2), pp. 127–147.
[6] Ahrentzen, S. (2003). "Double indemnity or double delight? The health consequences of shared housing and 'doubling up'." Journal of Social Issues, 59(3), pp. 547–568.; Harvey, H. (2020). "Cumulative effects of doubling up in childhood on young adult outcomes." Demography, 57(2), pp. 1–28.
[7] Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2003). "Finding and keeping affordable housing: Analyzing the experiences of single-mother families in North Philadelphia." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(4), pp. 123–140.
[8] Cutts, D. B., Meyers, A. F., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Chilton, M., Cook, J. T., and Frank, D. A. (2011). "U.S. Housing insecurity and the health of very young children. American Journal of Public Health," 101(8), pp. 1508–1514.
[9] Evans, G. W. (2003). "The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health," 80(4), pp. 536–555; Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). "Housing and health: Time again for public health action." American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), pp. 758–768.
[10] Baker, M., Das, D., Venugopal, K., & Howden-Chapman, P. (2008). "Tuberculosis associated with household crowding in a developed country. "Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(8), pp. 715–721; Colosia, A. D., Masaquel, A., Hall, C. B., Barrett, A. M., Mahadevia, P. J., & Yogev, R. (2012). "Residential crowding and severe respiratory syncytial virus disease among infants and young children: A systematic literature review." BMC Infectious Diseases, 12(1), pp. 95; Mehdipanah, R. (2020). "Housing as a determinant of COVID-19 inequities." American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), pp. 1369–1370.
[11] Zimmerman, F. J., & Pollack, C. (2020). Expiring eviction moratoriums and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3739576.
[2] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2009). Homeless emergency assistance and rapid transition to Housing Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-22, Section 1003).
[3] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020a, December). The 2019 annual homeless assessment report to Congress, part 1. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2020b, September). The 2018 annual homeless assessment report to Congress, part 2. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2018-AHAR-Part-2.pdf.
[4] U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Homeless student enrollment data by Local Education Agency-School Year 2016-27 EdFacts data documentation: Appendix B: Identified data anomalies. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/school-status-data.html; U.S. Department of Education. (2020). EDFacts data files. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/data-files/school-status-data.html.
[5] Bush, H., & Shinn, M. (2017). "Families’ experiences of doubling up after homelessness." Cityscape, 19(3), pp. 331–356; Cusack, M., & Montgomery, A. E. (2019). "Examining the risk factors and needs of veterans involuntarily doubling-up with family or friends." Housing and Society, 46(3), pp. 144–156; Skobba, K., & Goetz, E. G. (2015). "Doubling up and the erosion of social capital among very low-income households." International Journal of Housing Policy, 15(2), pp. 127–147.
[6] Ahrentzen, S. (2003). "Double indemnity or double delight? The health consequences of shared housing and 'doubling up'." Journal of Social Issues, 59(3), pp. 547–568.; Harvey, H. (2020). "Cumulative effects of doubling up in childhood on young adult outcomes." Demography, 57(2), pp. 1–28.
[7] Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2003). "Finding and keeping affordable housing: Analyzing the experiences of single-mother families in North Philadelphia." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(4), pp. 123–140.
[8] Cutts, D. B., Meyers, A. F., Black, M. M., Casey, P. H., Chilton, M., Cook, J. T., and Frank, D. A. (2011). "U.S. Housing insecurity and the health of very young children. American Journal of Public Health," 101(8), pp. 1508–1514.
[9] Evans, G. W. (2003). "The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban Health," 80(4), pp. 536–555; Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). "Housing and health: Time again for public health action." American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), pp. 758–768.
[10] Baker, M., Das, D., Venugopal, K., & Howden-Chapman, P. (2008). "Tuberculosis associated with household crowding in a developed country. "Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(8), pp. 715–721; Colosia, A. D., Masaquel, A., Hall, C. B., Barrett, A. M., Mahadevia, P. J., & Yogev, R. (2012). "Residential crowding and severe respiratory syncytial virus disease among infants and young children: A systematic literature review." BMC Infectious Diseases, 12(1), pp. 95; Mehdipanah, R. (2020). "Housing as a determinant of COVID-19 inequities." American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), pp. 1369–1370.
[11] Zimmerman, F. J., & Pollack, C. (2020). Expiring eviction moratoriums and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3739576.