Table of Contents
The New Face of Homelessness
Demographics of NYC’s Homeless: Then and Now
Affordable Housing
Mayoral Response to the Homelessness Crisis
Resources for the Homeless: Then and Now
Concluding Thoughts
Facebook news feeds and social media are filled with videos of ideal citizens lending a helping hand to their fellow citizens during a time of need. But what happens when the cameras turn off, when there’s no content to share for likes, shares, and comments filled with praise? The homeless crisis in New York City does not cease to exist when no light is shone upon the matter; instead the issue proliferates and affects the lives of thousands on a daily basis.
Homeless persons lack permanent housing and may live on the streets or in public facilities. Immediate triggering causes of homelessness include eviction, overcrowded housing, domestic violence, job loss, and hazardous housing conditions. The primary reason for homelessness however, is lack of affordable housing. This is subsidized housing designed in a manner that allows residents to allocate a small percentage of their low income to rent or mortgage.
The presented information aims to promote an understanding of the underlying causes of homelessness in the Bowery during the 1970s as well as the in modern day Bronx. It also presents the mechanisms that have been implemented to resolve this social issue and the impact that they have had on effectively reducing the homeless population in New York City.
The New Face of Homelessness
“As many as 3.5 million Americans are homeless each year. Of these, more than 1 million are children and on any given night, more than 300,000 children are homeless.”
Currently, the rate of homelessness in America is at the highest it has been since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The progression of this social issue into the complex inconvenience it is now is the result of Band-Aid solutions that have been applied to the various societal conflicts that encompass the rise of homelessness to begin with. Combined with Koch’s redevelopment of New York City was the rise of alcoholism in older men and high displacement rates of poor residents and mentally ill patients. Together, these factors worked to diminish the stability of permanent housing for thousands of New York City residents.
During the late 1970s, the deinstitutionalization of patients from state psychiatric hospitals was a precipitating factor which seeded the homeless population, especially in urban areas such as New York City. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 dismissed many psychiatric patients from hospitals in a new wave of optimism in mental healthcare.
There was also an influx of older white men in the Bowery who, due to personal choices and internal conflicts, began living on the streets. These men suffered from alcoholism and were ultimately joined by younger black men who suffered from substance abuse problems and lacked a proper education. Along with individual conflicts that this population faced, social problems such as gentrification contributed to a rise in their numbers; adding displaced families on the streets.
In modern day New York City additional circumstances have served as impetus for the displacement of individuals and families from their homes. Two factors that help account for increasing poverty are increased unemployment rates and the declining value and availability of public assistance. Available public assistance such as affordable housing offers temporary relief for the homeless. However, it does not provide most of them with the necessary resources to transition into permanent housing that guarantees no future need to return to a shelter.
Further explained by the BBC report above, providing temporary relief such as homeless shelters will not resolve the underlying issue. With economic inequality plaguing the lives of New Yorkers, the homeless epidemic is only becoming worse. It is becoming increasingly easier for the wealthy to displace the poor out their homes. Stagnant wages and escalating rent for those in the 60th percentile and below are huge contributing factors to the lack of affordable housing in New York City.*
Credit: Quoctrung Bui/NPR
The graphic above depicts the dramatic contrast between income growth of the poor and wealthy over time, with those in the 95th percentile (indicative by the top line) earning over a quarter of what they did 40 years ago.
With a “booming economy”, but unequal distribution of wealth, thousands of families are displaced and resort to living in homeless shelters. As the rate of homeless increases, the number of homeless children are among the highest for the group’s population in over 30 years. In the clip below, RT America elucidates how these children, the future of our country, have become victim to a failing economic system. One that has resulted in housing equipped with shared commodities with rodents, eroding opportunities to advance on the wealth ladder, and diminished hope.
As depicted in the above graph, there was an average of about 45,000 families with children per month living in shelters in New York City between the months of July and December for the 2016 fiscal year. The Department of Homeless Services failed to provide data acknowledging how many of over 4,000 families with children who were exited from the shelters transitioned to permanent housing. Instead, we see that slightly over 800 of these families exited to supportive housing. Only about 30% of the 12,000 families with children left the shelter system during this period and less than 7% of these families were given public assistance with their housing fees after they exited.*
As shown in the graph above many homeless families request temporary housing at PATH (People Assisting the Homeless).* This program works on developing affordable housing to get the homeless off the street and back on track to living an improved life. Families can also receive temporary shelter in a safe environment in AFIC, Adult Family Intake Centers. Though these programs aim to provide relief for the homeless, the conditions that they face in temporary housing is neither conducive of alleviating their burdens nor of stimulating improvement. The video below depicts the burdens that the homeless of the Bronx encounter while living in shelters.
Other programs, such as Safe Haven, educates and advocates to address and bring awareness to homelessness and offer shelters to those in need of immediate shelter. It provides a safe environment from crime and abuse and allows its temporary residents to be self- sufficient. This program also permits families to transition into homes and were the number one utilized facility among single adults in New York City for the 2016 fiscal year, as seen in the graphic below.
Demographics of NYC’s Homeless: Then and Now
“In most cases family difficulties led them to slip and they hit the Bowery and then hit the drink.”
Since as early as the 1870s, the Bowery hosted a significant amount of homeless people. In the 20th century, the Bowery had a reputation for being New York City’s “skid row,” complete with flophouses and vagrants. “Bowery bums” were stereotypically down-and-out middle-aged white men in various stages of alcoholism.
Historically, these men found themselves in the Bowery because of personal issues. According to a sergeant in the 1940s, “In most cases family difficulties led them to slip and they hit the Bowery and then hit the drink.”* Similarly, in the 1960s, according to the film How Do You Like the Bowery, many cited disability or death as the reason for their current state. Alan Raymond, one of the filmmakers of How Do You Like the Bowery, maintains that Bowery bums actually had it easier than homeless people today because they were in an urban environment that accommodated them. The streets of the Bowery were lined with flophouses in which one could sleep for very little money. Additionally, there was a sense of camaraderie on the streets, where bums shared their liquor and cigarettes with each other.
Moreover, Raymond says the police more or less left them alone in a “general hands-off attitude,” enabling them to have a sense of freedom and control over their lives. The Bowery didn’t afford them a great life, but it allowed these men to have a place for themselves where there could lead a life that was “tolerated by the people around them and by the city as well.”*
However, none of that exists today. In the 1980s, homelessness flourished and a new demographic emerged. In a complete reversal of the Bowery bum, the new homeless are younger, people of color, and largely families economically driven to homelessness. As housing and social service cuts increased and the economy deteriorated, more and more previously working class families found themselves on the streets. Black and Latino families are disproportionately affected by homelessness due to racial and ethnic inequality, which is exacerbated by growing income inequality. The widening gap between incomes and rents is most acute for poor and low-income New Yorkers, and, historically, blacks have higher poverty rates than whites, which put them more at risk for homelessness.
Over half of the City’s shelter residents are African American.
According to the Coalition for the Homeless, in 2014, 1 in 72 New Yorkers spent at least one night in the shelter system. However, when looking at race, 1 in 28 black New Yorkers spent at least one night in the shelter system, while only 1 in 294 white residents used the shelter system. Over half of the City’s shelter residents are African American. In 2014 alone, 16,000 blacks entered the shelter system, while only 2,100 whites utilized the shelter system.
Homeless families are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population, and are largest majority of homeless shelter residents, making up about ¾ of all residents. Additionally, 1/3 of the homeless shelter population resides in the Bronx, which has the more shelters than any other borough with 81 sites. Many argue that the City’s shelters aren’t evenly spread out throughout all 5 boroughs, instead accumulating in low-income neighborhoods. To critics, this impairs efforts to reintegrate the City’s homeless population back into larger society. Today, the Bowery bum has vanished from the City’s landscape. However, the problem of homelessness remains unsolved and is worse than ever, with over 60,000 sleeping in shelters as of March 2016.*
According to the DHS, 3/4 of the homeless population is families:*
Information obtained by the DHS also proves that more than ½ the homeless population in shelters are black:*
Additionally, DHS statistics show that 1/3 of the homeless population reside in shelters in the Bronx:*
Moreover, Bronx has the most shelters with 81 total:*
Affordable Housing
“Fight. Fight. Fight. Housing is a right.” Strongly stated in the video above, who is affordable housing actually affordable for? Affordable housing is an issue that has resurfaced numerous times over the years by government officials in an attempt to reconciled the issue.
Families who pay more than 30% of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. An estimated 12 million renter and homeowner households, now pay more than 50% of their annual income for housing. A family with one full-time worker earning a maximum wage cannot afford the local fair-market rent for a 2-bedroom apartment anywhere in the United States.
The government has a very specific definition for the terms “affordable housing” and “low income housing.” The government definition determines which families are eligible to live in certain housing developments, and also what a housing developer has to do to get government subsidies.
Using Median Family Income, or MFI, the government calculates income limits for affordable housing programs. This is also known as Area Media Income, or AMI. The Median Family Income is what the family in the center of the income distribution earns, not to be mistaken with the average income.
Since housing costs and incomes vary from place, the government divides the country into almost 1,000 different areas and calculates a separate MFI for each. The actual MFI for the United States is $64,000; the MFI for New York State is $67,900; and the MFI for New York City is $61,600. The MFI for the Bronx is only $38,000.
In order to determine the eligibility for affordable housing programs in New York, the government looks at the MFI for New York Metro Area. New York Metro Area consists of the five boroughs and Putnam County. In the New York Metro Area, the MFI for a family of four is $76,800. This is more than double the MFI for a family in the Bronx. New York City is one of the few areas where housing is so expensive that the government adjusts the income categories upward so that more families and developers can qualify for affordable housing.
The infographic to the left is an example of the MFI system. Let’s say these three families are looking at an apartment that rents for $1500 a month as part of an affordable housing plan for low income families. Two of these families, Family A and Family B, qualify for this apartment; while two of these families, Family B and Family C, can afford this apartment. By definition, this apartment will only work for Family B because only it can both qualify for and afford this apartment, according to the government. It appears that people in the extremely low income category are still shut out of affordable housing programs because of the way the MFI system works. It is difficult to determine how affordable housing should be distributed but it appears that the MFI system is leaving out a group of people that truly are in need of affordable housing. 
The graphic to the right shows the percentage of money that a person making minimum wage would have to pay in order to cover the cost of regular, not affordable, housing and affordable housing. With inflation accounted for, minimum wage and the cost of regular rent are roughly the same between 1978 and 2016. Affordable housing, on the other hand, is approximately 1/3 higher than it was in 1978. This is extremely significant data and says a great deal regarding affordable housing policies and how they have, or have not, matured over time. Even with affordable housing, the rent is still a very high and a large percentage of one’s minimum wage salary is required to cover the costs. Clearly, there is a large issue in terms of affordable housing actually being affordable for everyone including those who make the lowest of incomes. (Information for this graphic was taken from The New York Times, United States Department of Labor, Trulia and Douglas Elliman.)
Types of Affordable Housing
Throughout the years, government strategies to create affordable housing has changed. In the 1970s, the government began giving subsidies to families to search for their own housing from private landlords. These were the “Section 8” vouchers of that time. Now, the government uses tax incentives, low-interest loans, and other subsidies to encourage the developers and private investors to create affordable housing. Programs for tenants such as Public Housing and Section 8 are shrinking because these newer programs are aimed towards developers and private investors.
It appears that over the years the affordable housing trend is moving towards programs that benefit the developers and landlords more than the renters. This is a scary fact that millions of Americans who live in affordable housing or are homeless have to cope with. This will make it more difficult for those in need of affordable housing to apply and be accepted into the programs.
New York City has a variety of of affordable housing programs and models. Below are some of the major programs that were instituted in the 1970s and present day.
1970s:
Flophouses
A flophouse is a place that provides very cheap housing with minimal services for homeless people. Occupants shared a bathroom and lived in very tight quarters approximately the size of office cubicles. The Bowery had a lot of flophouses where the homeless lived.
Mitchell – Lama Buildings
From the 1950s – 1970s, Mitchell-Lama was created to offer low-interest mortgages, tax breaks and other subsidies for developers and landlords to provide affordable housing to moderate and middle income families. The rent varies from building to building but typically, a family’s income needs to be less than seven times the annual rent to be qualified to rent from that building. There are 101 Mitchell – Lama developments in New York City with roughly 46,000 units. Each building has a separate wait list, some buildings are closed, while other buildings are open but the wait could be years. Coverage typically lasts 30 years but after 20 years, a landlord could pay off their mortgage and remove the building from the program.
Now:
Public Housing – New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is the local housing authority run by New York City, that manages and maintains the buildings, decides who will live there and collects rent. It is the largest housing authority in the United States owning and operating approximately 178,000 public housing apartments in New York City. As of March 1, 2016, the Bronx has 89 developments with 44,295 apartments. NYCHA is given money by the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Families that earn less than 80% of the MFI are eligible for public housing. If families start to earn more than 80% of the MFI —which for New York City is $61,450 for a family of four — they will not be kicked out of their housing. New York City reserves half of all openings for working families who are at the higher end of the eligibility scale.
New York City spends approximately $1.9 billion on public housing. The federal government spends about $4.2 billion nationally. A large portion of the budget comes from rent while a little comes from the state and city.
Currently, there is an 8-9 year wait list for public housing. In 1974, President Nixon declared a federal moratorium on public housing construction. No more units are currently being constructed. Most of the public housing that is around today was constructed a while back. If a unit is demolished, it is not replaced.
Section 8 Housing (Housing Choice Voucher Program)
The Housing Choice Voucher program, also known as Section 8 Housing, was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1978 to provide assistance to low and moderate income families to rent housing in the private market. The program works as a rent subsidy that allows families to pay no more than 40% of their monthly income towards their portion of the rent; while the NYCHA pays the remaining amount to the owner of the private housing on behalf of the family, also know as the Housing Assistance Payment.
Local housing agencies can set the limit between 50% and 80% of MFI. NYCHA and HPD—Department of Housing Preservation and Development— an agency that oversees the creation and administration of affordable housing in the city—have set the limit at no more than 40%. It is very difficult to get Section 8 vouchers now unless you are part of a special group such as a domestic violence victim or participants in the witness protection program. It is also difficult for families to find an apartment that the landlord is willing to accept the voucher and rents for the right amount.
NYCHA administers the largest Section 8 program in the county. There are 90,000 Section 8 vouchers and over 29,000 owners participating in the program. The wait list is about 8 years and it is currently closed with 130,000 families on it. New York City received about $900 million of the $16 billion that the federal government spends on this program.
Once a family qualified for Section 8, they can stay in the program until they are able to pay the rent with 30% of their income and they no longer need a voucher to make up the difference. The program does not build units. Funding for the program is rather flat causing the total number of families in the program to stay the same or to shrink.
Project- Based Section 8
In Project- Based Section 8, HUD contracts with private landlords to set aside a number of their units for rent. The families pay 30% of their income to the tenant and the project based subsidy covers the rest. This is similar to the Section 8 portable vouchers except that the contracts with the landlords are for those particular buildings and cannot be moved to another apartment.
There are approximately 90,000 units within this program. Over $500 million of HUD’s $7 billion Project-Based Section 8 budget for unit in New York City. The typical contract lasted 10-20 years. Similar to tenant-based Section 8, families can stay in the program until 30% of their income pays the entire rent.
Rent Stabilization
Through rent stabilization, the state law limits by how much a landlord can increase rent each year. Landlords are only allowed to increase the rent by 3%-5% depending on how much the Rent Guidelines Board determines is acceptable. The landlord also cannot evict tenants without a legitimate cause, i.e. to find a higher paying tenant.
Families must earn less than $175,000 to be qualified for rent stabilized buildings and rent must be less than $2000 per month. Rent stabilization covers over a million units in New York City which is about half of all rental units in New York City.
New Housing Opportunities Program
New HOP was created in response to a need to offer affordable housing opportunities to people that make middle- income wages. Taxable bonds are given to developers to construct this types of rental housing. Apartments created through New HOP $53,800 (for an individual)- $134,000 (for a family of four), which is about 175% of the MFI.
Mayoral Response to the Homelessness Crisis
KOCH:
Koch was hesitant to invest money into the growing number of homeless because he was under the impression that the spike was temporary. However, when he realized the problem was more serious he developed shelters and services to help the homeless. But his shelter system was barrack-style dormitories as a way to make the wait for permanent housing less comfortable and discourage who had other housing options from “cheating” the system. Yet, this had a negative effect on people who were truly in need, as the poor quality of the shelters dissuaded many, causing them to brave the streets instead. Koch responded to this by attempting to involuntarily confine homeless people for up to 72 hours to give them food, a bath, and medical attention. Koch, however, did set aside 10% of the units created under his 10-year affordable housing plan for shelter residents, and, in his term as mayor, 4,000 apartments a year were built for shelter residents.*
DINKINS:
When Dinkins ran against Koch in the 1989 Democratic mayoral primary, he condemned Koch for inadequately providing permanent housing the homeless. Upon taking office, Dinkins did initially increase access to long-term housing for shelter residents. However, he soon faced a lot of obstacles that prevented him from really making progress on the issue. Just 6 weeks after taking office, Dinkins shifted gears and becomes more aggressive toward the homeless. Under Dinkins, the City bulldozed homeless encampments, barred “unauthorized persons” from public spaces, and embraced the Transit Authority’s eviction of disorderly homeless people from the subways, even in winter. Dinkins also proposed imposing welfare eligibility requirements on applicants for housing in shelters to prevent them from using the system as a way to get better housing.*
GIULIANI:
Like his two predecessors, Giuliani was worried that providing permanent housing to shelter residents would only draw more people into the shelter system and increase dependency. As such, he attempted to overturn Callahan v. Carey, which established the right to shelter, but he was rebuffed. Instead, Giuliani enacted a series of tough policies, such as time limits on shelter stays, work requirements, and narrow eligibility rules, which limited the shelter population for most of his mayoralty. He also drastically cut back on city-provided permanent housing, and reduced the amount of SROs in the City even though they played a vital role in low-income housing.*
BLOOMBERG:
Bloomberg expanded for-profit shelters (commercial hotels, motels, “cluster site” shelter units) instead of long-term, permanent housing options. In an attempt to discourage people from coming into shelters, he also ended the policy of giving shelter residents priority in federal housing referrals, such as public housing and Section 8 vouchers, which had been successful for decades in moving families out of shelters and keeping them stably housed. Instead, he replaced that with “Advantage,” a short-term rental subsidy program with benefits that expired. Bloomberg adopted Advantage because he claimed they would make the homeless more self-reliant and their numbers would decline. However, the opposite was true. As rents rose and low-income wages stagnated, more and more families found themselves in the shelter system. Moreover, once the time limit for Advantage’s subsidies ended, many families returned to the shelter system. Then, Bloomberg terminated the Advantage program, but failed to replace it with another program. Under Bloomberg, all long-term housing assistance for homeless families was terminated. This led to a boom in shelter residents who now stayed in shelters for longer at the expense of taxpayers.*
DE BLASIO:
Upon coming to office, de Blasio originally denied that the homeless population was surging. However, it peaked under his term at over 60,000 people, and de Blasio soon proposes new policies to reduce the homeless population. He unveiled “Housing New York,” in which de Blasio plans to build and preserve 200,000 affordable apartments in 10 years. Recently, de Blasio won big with his affordable housing plans clearing City Council. One of his plans is mandatory-inclusionary zoning, under which developers of new apartment towers will be required to include a certain percentage of units that are considered affordable in return for being able to build taller buildings. While this does bring some success, it is limited since the City won’t actually construct housing; rather, it encourages private developers to do so. Additionally, de Blasio slashed spending for shelters in his 2017 budget even though it is estimated that the 2017 homeless population will be larger.*
THE TAKEAWAY:
Modern homelessness has been fed by 2 trends: the City’s growing affordable housing crisis, and the disastrous policies of previous mayors. As such, in order to fix the crisis, these 2 issues need to be addressed.
In 2015, rents in the City have soared, affordable units continue to disappear, and incomes have not kept pace with housing costs. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, “between 2010 and 2014, the median household income across New York City rose by 2%, while the median rents rose 14%. In the lowest-income neighborhoods, the median income decreased by nearly 7%, while rents rose by 26%.” Those with the least have seen their already meager income decrease even more, while their rents have risen disproportionately higher than the rest of the City. What’s even more is that at the same time, the number of units renting for less than $1,000 (regulated and unregulated) has decreased by over 175,000. This widening gap between incomes and affordable housing drives more and more New Yorkers into poverty, and even homelessness.
Moreover, while this real estate crisis has forced thousands into homelessness, policies by previous administrations have exacerbated the crisis. Previous mayors, namely Bloomberg, have practically eliminated any way for these people to return to permanent housing. As seen above, Bloomberg replaced permanent rental assistance with a poorly designed temporary assistance program, which he later abandoned, leaving the homeless “with no housing assistance whatsoever for exiting the costly and chaotic shelter system.” As a result, during the Bloomberg administration, the homeless population in the city increased by 93% (31,554 in 2006 to 60,939 in 2014).
Under de Blasio, the number of homeless families has stabilized slightly due to his decision to focus on housing-based solutions, and his decision to reinstate priority placing of homeless families for federal housing resources. This will provide homeless families with stable permanent affordable housing options. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, this past year, over 1,900 families have moved into public housing. Additionally, de Blasio created a series of long-term rental subsidies to move families out of shelters. The Coalition for the Homeless states that, though only 2/3 through 2016, already over 1,800 families were moved into permanent housing with these subsidies.
Instead of dealing with homelessness ex post facto, the City should provide services to prevent the situation from occurring in the first place.
However, more must be done. There needs to be an increase in housing made available to homeless people, but there also needs to be effective homeless prevention services. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, the city has increased the number of public housing available to homeless families. However, they only account for less than ½ the total number of people housed in public housing units each year. Majority of public housing is filled without any correlation to their need. Rather, the units are filled based on income, with those with higher incomes in the applicant pool getting priority housing. Moreover, instead of dealing with homelessness ex post facto, the City should provide services to prevent the situation from occurring in the first place. In Housing Court, New Yorkers have no right to counsel, and, as a result, only 10% of tenants who appear in courts have attorneys to help protect their rights. On the other hand, almost 100% of all landlords do. De Blasio recognizes this stark contrast, and has increased funding for legal assistance in Housing Court to tenants facing eviction. Prevention methods can stop thousands from becoming homeless in the first place. The most common cause of their homelessness isn’t drug dependency or mental illness. It’s eviction. Therefore, if we can prevent evictions from occurring, we can make a major dent in the homelessness crisis.*
“Fighting homelessness is not rocket science. We know what works: Affordable and supportive housing, preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place, and improving shelter conditions to get people off the streets. These steps are not only effective, they are often far cheaper than the costs of sheltering tens of thousands of homeless New Yorkers.”*
–Mary Brosnahan, President and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless
Resources for the Homeless: Then and Now
The Bowery Mission:
No. 227 Bowery (Pictured above) is significant for its 103-year history as the home of the Bowery Mission, a religious-based organization that has fed, housed, helped find employment, provided medical assistance and cared for countless indigent homeless men on the Lower East Side for more than 130 years. This building is also an important reminder of the Bowery’s history during the 19th century and for its transient population that once stayed at the Bowery’s previously numerous homeless shelters run by missions and cheap lodging houses. No. 227 Bowery was built in 1876 by owner Jonas Stolts, a manufacturer of coffins and undertaker, and designed by William Jose (c.1843-1885). One of the oldest Christian missions still in existence in this country, the Mission became famous for its bread line, still exists today. You can visit Bowery.org for more information.
Resources today:
Compared to the past, there are a lot more resources for the homeless today. Below is a link to resources for homeless people in throughout NYC today. The list includes soup kitchens, places to take a shower, and places to obtain clothing. Below the list of tangible resources, there is a hotline list for people to access those types of mental health resources available.
Resources for Homeless Persons in NYC
Concluding Thoughts
The progression of the homeless crisis in New York City is the indirect result of the trivial, temporary resolutions that were applied to the social issues affecting its people. From institutionalized racism to the income inequality gap, these unsettled problems only complicate the possible mechanisms that could be created to fix the lack of affordable housing in New York; therefore decreasing the rate of homelessness. The lack of social welfare in New York City on a whole is the source of its past and potential downfalls. When the government and citizens start caring for not only themselves but their fellow community members, New York will truly be an ideal microcosm of the tolerant and accepting America it is often regarded to be.
