Safe Parking Programs: A New Intervention for Vehicular Homelessness
Article: “An Analysis of Safe Parking Programs: Identifying Program Features and Outcomes of an Emerging Homelessness Intervention''
Authors: Leslie R. Lewis, Mirle Rabinowitz Bussell, Stacy Livingstone
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2313511
Published Online: 31 Jul 2024
Article: “An Analysis of Safe Parking Programs: Identifying Program Features and Outcomes of an Emerging Homelessness Intervention''
Authors: Leslie R. Lewis, Mirle Rabinowitz Bussell, Stacy Livingstone
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2313511
Published Online: 31 Jul 2024
As U.S. housing costs soar, homelessness rates continue to increase (The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023). One particular group faces exceptional challenges: those living in vehicles. Individuals experiencing vehicular homelessness are often unaccounted for by government institutions and non-profits working to alleviate homelessness, as well as by researchers, since HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) does not require homelessness service providers to collect data on vehicular residency. Data available through other governmental entities such as the U.S Census Bureau suggest that approximately 140,000 Americans live in their vans, RVs, or boats, a 40% increase in vehicular residency since 2016 (Ryan, 2022). This count does not include the tens of thousands of Americans living out of their cars.
Vehicular Homelessness: Legal Barriers and Unfavorable Alternatives
Past research has revealed that among those experiencing homelessness, those who have vehicles often prefer to live in them rather than in shelters (Wakin, 2014). In particular, women, people with children, employed adults, and White individuals are more likely to live in vehicles than others experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Most shelters serve single individuals, and separate couples, families (Skinner & Rankin, 2016), and pets from owners (Donley & Wright, 2012). Many instances of discrimination and harassment are reported to occur at shelters as well, with many female (Batko et al. 2023; Grenier et al. 2016), elderly, trans and nonbinary (Davis, 2023; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016) individuals reporting that they have either been discriminated against or made to feel unsafe. Yet as vehicular homelessness increases, many cities have increased parking regulations to curb vehicular living or even ban it outright. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty calculates that the prevalence of such regulations has risen by 213% from 2006 to 2019. Tickets, fines, or vehicle towing as a result of these laws mean that many homeless individuals run the risk of losing a major asset and source of shelter, as many cannot pay the fees to regain access to their cars (So et al., 2016).
In response to such ordinances, safe parking programs are on the rise. These programs provide designated parking lots for individuals living in their vehicles to park overnight with access to services and without fear of facing legal action. The sparse existing research on safe parking programs reveals that they offer varying amenities, with 70% providing bathroom access, and approximately 60% providing access to showers, meals, WiFi, and financial and administrative assistance with vehicle maintenance and housing placement (McElwain, 2021). However, due to the barriers to information regarding those experiencing vehicular homelessness, the value of these programs as supportive measures towards combating homelessness is not well understood. Leslie R. Lewis, Mirle Rabinowitz Bussell, and Stacey Livingstone’s study, “An Analysis of Safe Parking Programs: Identifying Program Features and Outcomes of an Emerging Homelessness Intervention” helps fill this research gap. The authors strive to answer three questions:
Methods
In order to answer these questions, the authors conducted a case study on the Jewish Family Service of San Diego Safe Parking Program (JFS SPP), a safe parking program located in San Diego County, California. Researchers selected JFS SPP because it is one of the largest and most comprehensive safe parking programs in the country. The program serves San Diego, an area which reflects the ongoing struggle between those experiencing vehicular homelessness and their criminalization by local governments. In 2019, the City of San Diego enacted a new ban on vehicular homelessness while also committing funding to JFS SPP (Prohibition of Use of Streets for Storage, Service, or Sale of Vehicles or For Habitation, 2023).
Data collection for the case study ran from July 2019 to September 2022, and consisted of both qualitative data from individual and group interviews with clients and staff and quantitative client data. For the portion of the case study dedicated to quantitative research, the authors used client data JFS SPP logged into HUD’s Homeless Management Information System’s “other” category, a work-around the program utilizes that, due to an aforementioned lack of HUD regulations, is still limited in its ease of use for research purposes. Quantitative research was focused on measuring whether clients exited JFS SPP, and if so, whether the exits were positive (into temporary or permanent housing), and or negative (exits to shelters or unsheltered homelessness). Researchers analyzed the relationship between client demographic characteristics such as age, race, gender, disability and mental and physical health status, and presence of children in a client’s household with client exit outcomes.
For the qualitative portion of the case study, researchers conducted 180 oral history interviews with current clients and 69 longitudinal interviews with former clients. In addition, they spoke with 15 staff members across four sites, and held six group listening sessions for clients across those same four lots.. Interviews focused on what clients found helpful or unhelpful in regards to accessing secure housing both beyond and within the program, and how services could be improved for clients and staff.
Findings
The authors identified three major findings from the study. First, over the course of the study, 40% of JFS SSP clients exited into housing, a percentage four times higher than that of the positive exits from San Diego’s bridge shelters. Across several interviews, clients expressed a similar position on the program seemingly related to this finding: JFS SPP allowed them a safe place to rest, grow their financial resources, and utilize their social connections to find housing.
The authors found that clients that either A) had access to higher incomes or B) were more likely to foster strong social connections were more likely to have positive exits. In the former category, younger clients who found themselves unhoused after the loss of a job were often more likely than their older counterparts, possibly due to limitations of age and ability, to find higher paying work while staying at the lot, accrue savings, and move out. In terms of social networks, the authors discovered that women, who were more likely to have more social connections to draw from for support than their male counterparts, were more likely to have a positive exit from the safe parking lots. Finally, groups who were more likely to receive benefits, such as veterans and families with children, had a higher rate of positive exits, with veterans 2.65 times more likely to have a positive exit, and families with children 8 times more likely to have a positive exit.
The researcher’s second finding is that clients who have experienced both shelters and JFS SSP prefer the latter, reaffirming past research. One client reported, “…the big thing is that I felt like they [JFS SPP staff] cared about us. I felt like they gave us respect and dignity and…even though they have rules, the rules weren’t so overbearing that we felt like people were trying to make us slip up on rules… like when there’s rules and they [staff at a program] go out of their way to find out if you’re breaking them. That’s what I find [happens] a lot in the [shelters].”
The authors' final finding centered around identifying areas where JFS SPP could improve. Clients reported that while the program was beneficial to them overall, restrictive hours, limited amenities such as 15-minute showers, and incidents of racism from poorly trained staff hindered safety and security within the space. Clients working non-traditional shifts were especially likely to feel frustrated by programs that required clients to enter or exit the safe parking lot during certain hours.
Conclusions
These issues, the authors argue, are problems that increased funding for safe parking programs and subsequent expansion of their services would help improve. The researchers recommended that HUD officially recognize safe parking programs as eligible for federal funding and mandate data collection that will allow researchers to track their performance. In the meantime, the authors write, local policymakers should continue to advocate for, invest in, and improve safe parking services to combat homelessness in their communities.
Works Cited
Batko, S., Herrera, S., Bond, L., & Girod, K. (2023). Los Angeles County women’s needs Assessment: Findings from the 2022 survey of women experiencing homelessness. Urban Institute.
Donley, A. M., & Wright, J. D. (2012). Safer outside: A qualitative exploration of homeless people’s resistance to homeless shelters. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(4), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.695645
Grenier, A., Sussman, T., Barken, R., Bourgeois-Guérin, V., & Rothwell, D. (2016). Growing old’ in shelters and ‘on the street’: Experiences of older homeless people. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(6), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2016.1235067
McElwain, L., Schiele, D., & Waheed, L. (2021). Smart practices for safe parking: A nationwide review of safe parking programs for people sheltering in vehicles. The Center for Homeless Inquiries.
National Center for Transgender Equality (2016). New HUD resources help shelters provide safe access for trans people. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/blog/new-hud-resources-help-shelters-provide-safe-access-for-trans-people
Ryan, J. (2022, September 13). Why are so many Americans living in their cars? Medium. https://medium.com/the-midnight-garden/why-are-so-many-americans-living-in-their-cars-861438cba3f1
Skinner, S., & Rankin, S. (2016). Shut out: How barriers often prevent meaningful access to emergency shelter. Seattle University School of Law Homeless Rights Advocacy Project.
The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html.
Vehicular Homelessness: Legal Barriers and Unfavorable Alternatives
Past research has revealed that among those experiencing homelessness, those who have vehicles often prefer to live in them rather than in shelters (Wakin, 2014). In particular, women, people with children, employed adults, and White individuals are more likely to live in vehicles than others experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Most shelters serve single individuals, and separate couples, families (Skinner & Rankin, 2016), and pets from owners (Donley & Wright, 2012). Many instances of discrimination and harassment are reported to occur at shelters as well, with many female (Batko et al. 2023; Grenier et al. 2016), elderly, trans and nonbinary (Davis, 2023; National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016) individuals reporting that they have either been discriminated against or made to feel unsafe. Yet as vehicular homelessness increases, many cities have increased parking regulations to curb vehicular living or even ban it outright. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty calculates that the prevalence of such regulations has risen by 213% from 2006 to 2019. Tickets, fines, or vehicle towing as a result of these laws mean that many homeless individuals run the risk of losing a major asset and source of shelter, as many cannot pay the fees to regain access to their cars (So et al., 2016).
In response to such ordinances, safe parking programs are on the rise. These programs provide designated parking lots for individuals living in their vehicles to park overnight with access to services and without fear of facing legal action. The sparse existing research on safe parking programs reveals that they offer varying amenities, with 70% providing bathroom access, and approximately 60% providing access to showers, meals, WiFi, and financial and administrative assistance with vehicle maintenance and housing placement (McElwain, 2021). However, due to the barriers to information regarding those experiencing vehicular homelessness, the value of these programs as supportive measures towards combating homelessness is not well understood. Leslie R. Lewis, Mirle Rabinowitz Bussell, and Stacey Livingstone’s study, “An Analysis of Safe Parking Programs: Identifying Program Features and Outcomes of an Emerging Homelessness Intervention” helps fill this research gap. The authors strive to answer three questions:
- “What are the effects of the safe parking intervention in terms of housing placements and/or improvements to health and well-being for clients, and do any sub-populations benefit more than others?”
- “Where do safe parking programs fit within the broader homelessness service ecosystem?”
- “How can safe parking programs improve their services to better assist all clients?”
Methods
In order to answer these questions, the authors conducted a case study on the Jewish Family Service of San Diego Safe Parking Program (JFS SPP), a safe parking program located in San Diego County, California. Researchers selected JFS SPP because it is one of the largest and most comprehensive safe parking programs in the country. The program serves San Diego, an area which reflects the ongoing struggle between those experiencing vehicular homelessness and their criminalization by local governments. In 2019, the City of San Diego enacted a new ban on vehicular homelessness while also committing funding to JFS SPP (Prohibition of Use of Streets for Storage, Service, or Sale of Vehicles or For Habitation, 2023).
Data collection for the case study ran from July 2019 to September 2022, and consisted of both qualitative data from individual and group interviews with clients and staff and quantitative client data. For the portion of the case study dedicated to quantitative research, the authors used client data JFS SPP logged into HUD’s Homeless Management Information System’s “other” category, a work-around the program utilizes that, due to an aforementioned lack of HUD regulations, is still limited in its ease of use for research purposes. Quantitative research was focused on measuring whether clients exited JFS SPP, and if so, whether the exits were positive (into temporary or permanent housing), and or negative (exits to shelters or unsheltered homelessness). Researchers analyzed the relationship between client demographic characteristics such as age, race, gender, disability and mental and physical health status, and presence of children in a client’s household with client exit outcomes.
For the qualitative portion of the case study, researchers conducted 180 oral history interviews with current clients and 69 longitudinal interviews with former clients. In addition, they spoke with 15 staff members across four sites, and held six group listening sessions for clients across those same four lots.. Interviews focused on what clients found helpful or unhelpful in regards to accessing secure housing both beyond and within the program, and how services could be improved for clients and staff.
Findings
The authors identified three major findings from the study. First, over the course of the study, 40% of JFS SSP clients exited into housing, a percentage four times higher than that of the positive exits from San Diego’s bridge shelters. Across several interviews, clients expressed a similar position on the program seemingly related to this finding: JFS SPP allowed them a safe place to rest, grow their financial resources, and utilize their social connections to find housing.
The authors found that clients that either A) had access to higher incomes or B) were more likely to foster strong social connections were more likely to have positive exits. In the former category, younger clients who found themselves unhoused after the loss of a job were often more likely than their older counterparts, possibly due to limitations of age and ability, to find higher paying work while staying at the lot, accrue savings, and move out. In terms of social networks, the authors discovered that women, who were more likely to have more social connections to draw from for support than their male counterparts, were more likely to have a positive exit from the safe parking lots. Finally, groups who were more likely to receive benefits, such as veterans and families with children, had a higher rate of positive exits, with veterans 2.65 times more likely to have a positive exit, and families with children 8 times more likely to have a positive exit.
The researcher’s second finding is that clients who have experienced both shelters and JFS SSP prefer the latter, reaffirming past research. One client reported, “…the big thing is that I felt like they [JFS SPP staff] cared about us. I felt like they gave us respect and dignity and…even though they have rules, the rules weren’t so overbearing that we felt like people were trying to make us slip up on rules… like when there’s rules and they [staff at a program] go out of their way to find out if you’re breaking them. That’s what I find [happens] a lot in the [shelters].”
The authors' final finding centered around identifying areas where JFS SPP could improve. Clients reported that while the program was beneficial to them overall, restrictive hours, limited amenities such as 15-minute showers, and incidents of racism from poorly trained staff hindered safety and security within the space. Clients working non-traditional shifts were especially likely to feel frustrated by programs that required clients to enter or exit the safe parking lot during certain hours.
Conclusions
These issues, the authors argue, are problems that increased funding for safe parking programs and subsequent expansion of their services would help improve. The researchers recommended that HUD officially recognize safe parking programs as eligible for federal funding and mandate data collection that will allow researchers to track their performance. In the meantime, the authors write, local policymakers should continue to advocate for, invest in, and improve safe parking services to combat homelessness in their communities.
Works Cited
Batko, S., Herrera, S., Bond, L., & Girod, K. (2023). Los Angeles County women’s needs Assessment: Findings from the 2022 survey of women experiencing homelessness. Urban Institute.
Donley, A. M., & Wright, J. D. (2012). Safer outside: A qualitative exploration of homeless people’s resistance to homeless shelters. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12(4), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.695645
Grenier, A., Sussman, T., Barken, R., Bourgeois-Guérin, V., & Rothwell, D. (2016). Growing old’ in shelters and ‘on the street’: Experiences of older homeless people. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(6), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2016.1235067
McElwain, L., Schiele, D., & Waheed, L. (2021). Smart practices for safe parking: A nationwide review of safe parking programs for people sheltering in vehicles. The Center for Homeless Inquiries.
National Center for Transgender Equality (2016). New HUD resources help shelters provide safe access for trans people. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/blog/new-hud-resources-help-shelters-provide-safe-access-for-trans-people
Ryan, J. (2022, September 13). Why are so many Americans living in their cars? Medium. https://medium.com/the-midnight-garden/why-are-so-many-americans-living-in-their-cars-861438cba3f1
Skinner, S., & Rankin, S. (2016). Shut out: How barriers often prevent meaningful access to emergency shelter. Seattle University School of Law Homeless Rights Advocacy Project.
The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html.