2020 | VULNERABLE CITIES, POPULATIONS

Sustainable transitional housing solutions for chronically unsheltered populations in the U.S.

David Franco | Ulrike Heine | George Schafer

FOREWORD

Studies have shown that a lack of safe short-term housing, such as transitional housing, is one of the biggest risk factors for people experiencing housing insecurity during severe weather. In addition to providing shelter, transitional housing facilities are a critical point of access to information about impending extreme weather conditions for unsheltered people. Research indicates that on average 50% people experiencing homelessness do not receive any warning of the coming events, and 45% have no access to information about what to do in the event of extreme weather. For those who do receive information and warnings, it is most often through the outreach services provided by community agencies such as transitional housing facilities. Moreover, transitional housing facilities themselves are also highly vulnerable to the impacts of extreme weather and natural disasters. A recent study found that 25% of shelters and transitional housing facilities – typically constructed on shoestring budgets – could not recover if their buildings and/or infrastructure were damaged by the impacts of extreme weather. Considering these factors together – the lack of access to housing and services, to weather information and warnings, and to facilities designed to adequately withstand extreme weather and natural disasters – climate change continues to deepen the cycle of homelessness for many communities throughout the United States.

This semester, students will work in pairs to propose innovative design solutions for transitional housing facilities (housing + resources/services) for one of four vulnerable populations experiencing housing insecurity. Each user group has been paired with an American city that is increasingly exposed to natural disasters and extreme weather conditions and events:

1. LGBTQ+ Youth | Santa Cruz, California

2. Female Ex-offenders | Tulsa, Oklahoma

3. Domestic Violence Victims | Fairbanks, Alaska

4. Veterans | Mobile, Alabama

Introduction

GENERAL THEME & BACKGROUND

The problem of extreme weather

The impact of climate change is no longer a problem for future generations. Natural disasters and extreme weather events and conditions – such as polar vortex cold spells, intolerable heat waves, draughts, flood events, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and mudslides – are already affecting people throughout the United States. For some, extreme weather events are an inconvenience that keeps them home from work or school; for others, such events are life threatening. For the most vulnerable people in urban environments – especially those experiencing housing insecurity – there is little respite from extreme weather conditions and events. While it may be tempting to see climate change, and weather-related hazards in general, as “natural” problems, they are fundamentally attributable to social processes. This concept, often called social vulnerability, is a common framework for unpacking the effects of extreme weather on America’s most vulnerable communities and people.

Though scientists and politicians alike acknowledge that social vulnerability plays an important role in extreme weather-related death and illness, little has been done to address the problem. As cities, states and regions navigate a world where extreme weather is commonplace, one of their challenges is providing infrastructure to help care for those who need it most. In the short-term, cities require solutions to protect people experiencing housing insecurity from dangerous weather conditions. However, experts agree that the best way to mitigate risks to health and safety during extreme weather is through structural policies that curb gentrification, support affordable housing, shelters, transitional housing, and access to assistance and resources (healthcare, education, etc.) to those in need – in other words, through long-term solutions that aim to eliminate homelessness in our cities.

Transitional housing – a brief history and lessons learned

Rapidly rising homelessness in the late 1970s and early 1980s initially evoked crisis responses from federal and local agencies, with responses focused primarily on expanding the capacity for emergency shelter. Only later in the 1980s did the emphasis shift to developing housing and service combinations that would address longer-term needs of the homeless population. Federal support for both transitional and permanent housing has been provided since 1987 with McKinney Act funds, and since 1994, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began to require that applicants for federal funds create an integrated “continuum of care,” transitional housing has been deemed one of the necessary components of a comprehensive response to homelessness.

Transitional housing usually differs from emergency shelter in offering smaller facilities, more privacy, and more intensive services with greater expectations for participation. While shelter services address basic needs (food, clothing, a place to sleep), the services in transitional programs almost invariably extend beyond meeting survival needs. They tend to be coordinated by case managers and are geared toward helping residents define goals and achieve greater independence. Finally, transitional housing is almost always time limited, with lengths of stay usually capped somewhere between three months and two years.

Transitional housing models are varied and wide-ranging. “Stand-alone” transitional housing models, such as congregate facilities, multi-unit apartments and single-room occupancy facilities, occupy entire buildings. “Clustered” apartment programs group transitional residents together in a separate wing or floor of a larger structure, and “scattered-site” apartments are dispersed through “regular” apartment buildings or housing projects. New transitional housing models, such as clusters of tiny homes in stand-alone or scattered-site arrangements, are even being proposed in many cities. Variations in the physical structures have implications for the amount of privacy individuals and families have; the availability of space for on-site programming; and the degree to which transitional tenants are integrated into the building and broader community.

Research into the 30+ year history of transitional housing models reveals important lessons critical to designers charged with reimagining this building typology for the 21st century. These include:

•Transitional housing is controversial. Critics view it as stigmatizing, destabilizing, and a drain on resources better used for permanent housing; proponents view is as the best way to ensure homeless families and individuals get the services that will enable them to attain and sustain self-sufficiency as well as permanent housing.

• The stigma associated with these facilities has made their placement within urban contexts challenging, often due to “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) sentiments expressed by property owners concerned about perceived issues of personal safety and negative impacts on property values. Provider experience underscores the importance of issues of scale, community networks, and “fit” with the fabric of the community – not only to foster community acceptance of transitional housing programs but to enhance safety and stability for residents and neighbors alike.

• Programs vary in numerous ways-including target populations, physical structure, service intensity, admission thresholds, and conditions and duration of tenure. Although there are almost limitless combinations of these dimensions, program characteristics tend to cluster along a continuum, with “high demand” (e.g., congregate, structured, service intensive) programs at one pole and “low demand” (e.g., dispersed, flexible criteria, optional services) at the other.

• Research on transitional housing indicates that adding low demand transitional housing to outreach or drop-in services for homeless individuals improve their likelihood of obtaining permanent housing.

• Transitional programs at the “high demand” end of the continuum usually serve individuals and families with multiple problems. Research suggests that highly structured facilities which double as treatment programs for people with severe mental illness and/or substance abuse problems improve housing and clinical outcomes for those who remain until they graduate, but they also have extremely high attrition rates. For most who enter them, they are not a route out of homelessness. Providers are encouraged to experiment with alternative approaches for those with multiple problems.

• Research findings show that scattered-site models of transitional housing that “convert” to subsidized permanent housing are a cost-effective approach to helping families transition out of homelessness without the stigma and disruption of support networks that facility-based approaches may entail. Some variants of this model also add to the permanent housing stock by restoring deteriorated units. Convertible models have been developed for individuals as well, and providers are encouraged to continue to develop this approach.

• Transitional housing can only be effectively implemented in the context of a continuum of resources that includes adequate permanent housing and the supportive community-based services that can prevent returns to homelessness.

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN VULNERABLE CITIES

VP/VC 1 – LGBTQ+ Homeless Youth/Santa Cruz, CA

A disproportionate number of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth experience housing insecurity each year in the United States. In fact, LGBTQ+ young adults have a 120 percent higher risk of reporting homelessness than those who identify as heterosexual or cisgender. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revealed that while only approximately 7% of the general youth population identify as LGBTQ+ youth, they account for nearly 40% of the homeless youth population. Moreover, LGBTQ youth who experience housing insecurity have particularly high rates of mental health and substance use problems, suicidal acts, violent victimization, and are more likely to engage in a range of HIV risk behaviors. These youth also experience lower levels of long-term educational attainment—placing them at an even greater disadvantage when they enter the job market. Growing up without the critical family and social safety nets so many young people rely on results in catastrophic consequences for economic stability, educational attainment and life expectancy.

In California, the number of homeless children in K-12 schools overall has increased 20% between 2014 and 2017, according to data collected by the California Department of Education. Based on questionnaires filed by their families, more than 200,000 young people were living on the streets, in motels, in cars, in shelters or crowded into apartments with other families due to financial hardship. Additionally, according to the 2019 Continuums of Care report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, California had the highest number of homeless unaccompanied young adults (ages 18-24) of any state – nearly 12,000 – accounting for 8% of the overall population of persons experiencing homelessness on any given day. While state data does not identify whether these students or homeless unaccompanied young adults are LGBTQ+, national statistics would support the claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are disproportionately represented.

Statistics show that LGBTQ+ homeless youth face significant barriers to accessing shelters and transitional housing facilities that are tailored to the general population – and that those that achieve access often face some of the same risks that often lead to their homelessness in the first place, such as bullying, harassment, violence and sexual assault. Homeless youth in Santa Cruz county also face hazardous environmental conditions that exacerbate their safety and well-being. A 2018 update to the City of Santa Cruz’s Hazard Mitigation Plan identified a variety of hazards that have the potential to precipitate wide spread loss of life, damage to property, infrastructure and the environment. Some hazards are natural, such as earthquakes, while others are natural hazards exacerbated by the use of land, such as building along the cliff and development within floodplains. Flooding, drought, earthquakes and cliff retreat have all occurred in the City of Santa Cruz within the last fifty years. Until 1989, flooding on the San Lorenzo River had caused the most severe damage in the City. However, the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 changed that history. Although subject to droughts, the hazard assessment indicates that the Santa Cruz will continue to experience flood conditions in the future. Additionally, there is a very strong possibility of an earthquake equal to or larger than the Loma Prieta quake occurring in the Santa Cruz area in the near future.

Santa Cruz County is also among the highest-risk counties for landslides in Northern California, according to the California Geological Survey. The Santa Cruz Mountains join parts of Marin County and the East Bay where residents are on constant alert that steep slopes and rock instability could cause the ground to slide out from under them. As one of many threatened cities in the Bay Area, Santa Cruz is at an increased risk for landslides because it has higher mountains, steeper slopes, and it has weaker rocks. This risk extends beyond purely geological factors when climate and other natural events, such as fire storms, earthquakes or extreme weather patterns – each of which could easily trigger landslides – are taken into consideration.

VP/VC 2 – Newly-released Female Ex-offenders/Tulsa, OK:

For over 25 years, Oklahoma has led the nation in the rate at which it sends women to prison. Roughly 151 of every 100,000 Oklahoma women are behind bars — twice the national average. The majority of women incarcerated in Oklahoma are doing time for nonviolent crimes and drug-related offenses. The incarceration rates are disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations – when compared to women who can afford private attorneys, poor women in rural areas receive longer sentences, and women of color, both African American and Native American, are incarcerated at higher rates than white women in the state. Moreover, women, particularly mothers, are treated more harshly and sometimes receive longer sentences than men because their crimes are often drug-related. And if the current trend continues, the state’s prison system is expected to grow by nearly 60 percent over the next 10 years.

Incarceration doesn’t just affect one woman. When you send a woman to prison, it can affect generations of Oklahomans. Often, women are the sole breadwinners and caretakers of children. When they go to prison, children may end up with their fathers, who may be the reason the mother is in prison in the first place. Some children end up with other relatives who don’t want them or have a full house already, while others end up in foster care. Additionally, a recent study by the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services shows that if mom goes to prison, there’s a good chance one of her children will, as well. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon in Oklahoma for three generations of women in the same family – daughters, mothers and grandmothers – to be incarcerated at the same time.

Oklahoma currently spends about $500 million a year on their prison system – about twice as much as it costs to provide treatment to drug-related offenders on the outside. This, in a state where school budgets have been slashed and some districts can only afford to send kids to school four days a week. However, recent public pressure in the state has resulted in changes to sentencing reform and the creation of private initiatives aiming to focus on treatment instead of incarceration for women in the state. For example, in an effort to reduce crowding in prisons, Oklahoma will now allow inmates who are within 18 months of completion of their sentence and are serving time for nonviolent offenses to be released into a community supervision program. And in Tulsa County, the rate for sending women to prison has decreased over the last seven years, due in part to a program funded by oil billionaire George Kaiser that aims to send women to treatment instead.

While a positive trend is emerging in Oklahoma, female ex-offenders face considerable challenges upon reentry into society. The newly released are expected to return to their communities, contribute to the tax base and participate constructively in society. For many, successful reentry - meaningful participation in society – remains a myth. All too often, women with a criminal record find themselves locked out of education, employment, shelter, public benefits, and access to health care – variables proven to be foundational to a successful transition. These barriers are particularly devastating to incarcerated mothers, who face the pressures of societal reintegration while they simultaneously work to put their families back together.

Tulsa is a city with a complex racial (see: Greenwood District Massacre), cultural (see: Native American displacement), environmental and climatic history – factors that exacerbate the vulnerability of incarcerated women newly released into the community. And when it comes to environmental conditions that can threaten vulnerable populations, Oklahoma has it all. The state’s location at the intersection of the hot arid zone to the west, the temperate zone to the northeast, and the hot humid zone to the southeast makes it subject to a wide variety of potentially violent weather and natural hazards. The state constitutes a central stretch of what’s known as “Tornado Alley,” and thanks to oil industry fracking, Oklahoma has supplanted California as the place where residents are most likely to experience damage from earthquakes. The state is also subject to frequent extreme weather events, with damage-inducing wind, hail, ice storms and draught. While the sun shines most days in the state, violent storms are so common that the Tulsa Voice, a local alternative weekly paper, includes “Best Place to Wait Out Extreme Weather” as a category in its annual “Best of” awards (the aptly named “Cellar Dweller” bar is the reigning champ for this category).

In the 1970’s and early 1980s Tulsa was identified in a national study as one of the nation’s most disaster-prone areas, having been declared a federal disaster area nine times in only fifteen years, mostly due to persistent flooding of the Arkansas River and the city’s many creeks and tributaries. Flooding has plagued Tulsa for over a century and reached its peak in 1984, when 15 inches of rain fell within six hours, resulting in 14 deaths, nearly 300 injured people, and 7,000 damaged or destroyed vehicles. Total losses in the city were estimated at $180 million (over $400 million in today’s dollars), and infrastructural flood mitigation initiatives have been ongoing in the city for decades.

VP/VC 3 – Displaced Victims of Domestic Violence/Fairbanks, AK

Alaska has the highest homicide rate for female victims killed by a male perpetrator in the United States. Additionally, Alaska has the third-highest intimate partner violence against women lifetime prevalence in the nation. Out of every 100 women who live in Alaska, 40 have experienced intimate-partner violence; 33 have been the victim of sexual violence; and 50 have experienced intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or both. Alaska also has the largest Native population as a percent of the total population in the United States. More than 84% of Alaska Native women experience violence in their lifetimes, and as a whole, Native Alaskans experience domestic violence, homicide, sexual assault and abuse with greater frequency than other groups.

Vulnerable populations in Fairbanks, such as those experiencing domestic violence, are made more vulnerable by increasingly inhospitable climatic conditions. Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the United States. The state’s average temperature has increased 3.4°F and winters have warmed by a whopping 6.3°F. Warmer days and nights are causing earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and permafrost thawing. Permafrost, or permanently frozen ground, underlies about 85 percent of Alaska and when it thaws, it often causes the soil to sink thereby damaging whatever is built on it. Economists estimate that thawing permafrost could add between $3.6 billion and $6.1 billion (10 to 20 percent) to future costs for publicly owned infrastructure by 2030 and between $5.6 billion and $7.6 billion (10 to 12 percent) by 2080 leaving cities like Fairbanks at risk.

Fairbanks is also no stranger to wildfires. Massive fires during the summers of 2004 and 2005 forced many of the city’s residents to wear surgical masks. By the end of this century, the area burned in Alaska is projected to triple under even a moderate greenhouse-gas emissions scenario. Bark beetles are also on the rise. In the 1990s, Alaska saw the largest outbreak of spruce beetles in the world as rising temperatures allowed the beetle to thrive and drought-stressed trees were unable to fight back. Wildfires and spruce beetle infestations, coupled with growing risk of stronger coastal storms and the potential for impacts of warmer water on Alaska’s fisheries—which include salmon, crab, halibut, and herring—suggest that even cold places have a lot to lose from global warming.

In 2004, the Fairbanks Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) determined that the Fairbanks North Star Borough was particularly susceptible to five natural hazards: floods, wildfires, severe weather, seismic events, and volcanic ash fall. Various parts of the community experience flood and wildfire hazards on a regular basis, and the occurrence of severe weather events can cause area-wide shortages of supplies and outages of public utilities. While there is lesser seismic and volcanic activity in the immediate area around Fairbanks, the potential for regional events to disrupt air and rail traffic could have a strong effect on the transportation of critical supplies to Fairbanks: 100% of the state’s gasoline and 97% of all foodstuffs are shipped in from outside of Alaska. The vulnerability of the community to these hazard events, coupled with its relative isolation from other major population centers, underscores the need for methodical and well-organized planning and hazard mitigation efforts.

VP/VC 4 – Unsheltered Veterans/Mobile, AL

Homelessness in veterans has been prevalent in the United States for over two centuries. First identified following the War of 1812 and then again in increasing numbers after the Civil War, veterans returning from World War I entered a society managing an unprecedented economic depression. In the latter part of the 20th century, thousands of Vietnam veterans were visibly homeless upon military separation. In subsequent decades, much attention was paid to the physical, emotional, and mental health issues of the homeless in the aftermath of deinstitutionalization of the seriously mentally ill. And with the “War on Drugs” of the 1980s, the media shined a spotlight on how the dangers of substance abuse, including loss of livelihood and housing, impacted homeless veterans.

Recent studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reveal characteristics that result in higher incidences of homelessness among veterans returning from recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Female veterans are more likely to experience homelessness at the time of separation from duty than their male counterparts. Homeless veterans are more likely to be young (under the age of 35), and nearly half of the homeless veteran population struggle with mental illness, including anxiety and mood disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, the presence of mental illness is the strongest predictor of becoming homeless for veterans upon leaving active duty. And if a soldier is diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury, they are three times more likely to experience homelessness. All of these factors are compounded when veterans are returning stateside to a climate of high unemployment and economic downturns, as is the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. While trends, attitudes towards helping the homeless, and services available to them have varied widely over time, research shows that a “housing first” strategy that prioritizes their unsheltered status is foundational to resolving any mental health and substance abuse issues in the individual, should they exist.

Veterans comprise roughly 9% of the adult population in Alabama. The state is home to roughly 80,000 veterans who have served in U.S. wars since September 11, 2001, and ranks 15th in the nation for the number of veterans living in poverty. To provide some context for the challenges that veterans face after separation from active duty both nationally and in the state of Alabama: In the past four years, roughly 160 service men and women were killed in active duty – roughly three deaths per month – while across the country 20 veterans take their own life every day. In Alabama alone, 128 veterans committed suicide in 2016, and with statistics indicating that there are roughly 300 unsheltered veterans currently in the state (likely managing debilitating mental illness), it is more likely that a homeless veteran will commit suicide than find shelter and the resources that truly support their health and safety.

In addition to mental illness, unsheltered veterans in Mobile, Alabama are likely to contend with environmental conditions that negatively impact their physical well-being. Mobile County is considered highly vulnerable to hurricanes due to existing development patterns, coastal population, and its history of events. The number of people affected by hurricanes and tropical storms is significant, the economic costs are high, the likelihood of hurricanes and tropical storms is moderate, and vulnerability is high. All buildings and infrastructure in the County are vulnerable to hurricanes and tropical storms. Mobile County has a long history of tropical storm and hurricane impacts that are recorded as far back as 1559. As a result of its geographical location on the Gulf of Mexico, Mobile County has been struck by 14 hurricanes, 7 of them category 3 or above, between 1969 and 2012, the year of their most recent hazard mitigation planning report.

Hurricanes combine multiple natural hazards in the form of high sustained winds, tornados, heavy rains, and storm surge. Along the Gulf coast, including bays and bayous, significant property damage is expected from storm surge. Storm surge is the rise of sea level coupled with wind driven waves. The storm surge resulting from Hurricane Katrina (2005), for example was so strong that it cut a canal through the western part of Dauphin Island, destroying many homes. Bayou La Batre and Dauphin Island suffered significant damage from tidal surges during Hurricane Katrina. Additionally, the City of Mobile and its northern suburbs have some vulnerability to tidal surges, although Mobile Bay partially shields these communities. During Hurricane Isaac, though, storm surge tides of 4 to 6 feet were witnessed in the Mobile Bay region. Tornados can also be produced by the hurricane systems and add heavier localized areas of damage where they occur. Finally, heavy rains and flooding compound damages from storm surge and high winds.

Flooding is a significant concern to Mobile County communities, due to the county’s low-lying, estuarine geography. The county experiences riverine, coastal, and flash flooding, with the greatest risk being for low-lying areas on the Gulf, including Bayou La Batre, Dauphin Island, and adjacent unincorporated communities, which are vulnerable to coastal flooding caused by storm surges. Historical records indicate that Mobile County has witnessed 100 floods between 1995 and 2014 (5 per year), with damages averaging $422,750 per year and $84K per event.

Sea level rise is another factor that will have profound impacts on the future probability of coastal flooding. Coastal areas are seeing higher and higher sea levels as global changes interact with local factors.

Across the globe, sea levels have remained relatively stable over the past few thousand years, climbing less than a few tenths of a millimeter per year. Since the mid–to late nineteenth century, however, sea level rise has accelerated dramatically. Sea levels rose by an average of 1.7 to 1.8 mm/year over the twentieth century, but rose by an average of 2.8 mm/year between 1993 and 2017. Even on sunny days or during small storms, rising sea levels mean that extreme high tides can cause nuisance flooding more frequently and over a greater area. Nuisance flooding can be disruptive and expensive to the local economy, particularly in the tourism-dependent area such of Mobile county.

Rising sea levels will also mean that deadly and destructive storm surges will push farther inland than they once did. This will place more people, property, and valuable infrastructure at risk, including essential facilities such as wastewater treatment plants. As storm surges push further inland, they can also accelerate the erosion of beaches, dunes, and coastal wetlands. These features serve as natural flood defenses by reducing the height and energy of large waves. The erosion of these natural defenses leaves coastal communities, like Mobile, Alabama, even more vulnerable to the next storm surge event.