Policy Memorandum
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor Bill de Blasio
Jonatta Moore, Michelle Anasa, and Matthew Simon: Graduate Students
Baruch College, School of Public Affairs, PAF 9103
Child Homelessness in New York City
December 3, 2015
Executive Summary:
Homelessness is an issue that is not new to NYC, but recently it has been increasing at such a dramatic
rate that we can no longer ignore the breadth of its negative repercussions throughout society. Time is a
luxury that this city can no longer afford when it comes to addressing the problem of homelessness.
Definitive action needs to be taken now in order to break the cycle of poverty and stop the increase of
homeless families. Fortunately this problem is not yet insurmountable and there are concrete steps that
can be taken to make real changes for the betterment of our city and ultimately ourselves. Not investing
today in systems to help children in poverty is akin to writing ourselves an IOU for an undetermined
amount of money in the future which will be paid out in the form of court and prison fees mental
healthcare costs, and sadly a greater need for shelters down the road. You can only plug the dyke of
homelessness for so long with temporary emergency spending until the entire system collapses on itself,
spilling people back into the streets and creating a disaster that was otherwise preventable. When
approaching this issue from both a social and an economic point of view, the only logical conclusion to
be reached is that we must allocate our resources today toward remedying the homelessness problem to
inhibit these negative outcomes, rather than spending more money in the future to treat the societal
problems that our lack of funds and attention caused in the first place.
The Problem:
Part I: Child Homelessness
The 2013 mayoral election introduced New York residents to progressive candidate, Bill de Blasio who
proclaimed New York a “tale of two cities.” His progressive agenda and campaign promises to bring
sweeping changes propelled him to victory. After 12 years under Michael Bloomberg’s leadership, New
Yorkers were ready for a change that would shift the pendulum of power back to the people and away
from businesses who had enjoyed auspicious policies during the Bloomberg era.
De Blasio was critical of his predecessor and his criticism were not without merit. During Bloomberg’s
tenure; inequality widened, funding for human services decreased, homelessness skyrocketed, the rich
got richer, and rent prices increased substantially.[i] By the time Bill de Blasio was sworn into office,
New York City was the most unequal city in the United States. [ii]
Reports from 2013 indicate that 1.7 million New Yorkers live below the federal poverty threshold and
1.8 million New Yorkers rely on soup pantries and require food assistance. [iii] Additionally, 1 in 3
children lived in poverty.[iv] The rising cost of living married with stagnant wages have been a struggle
and burden on families and contributed to the widening inequality. As Patrick Markee, Deputy Director
of Advocacy at Coalition for the Homeless shared, “many homeless people are working. A third of our
homeless families in our shelter system are working, many of them working two jobs. They simply can't
afford apartment rents at market costs. [v] This widening gap is having a significant impact on the most
vulnerable in our city.
Underfunding for social service programs, school closures, rent affordability, and a decline in wages
during Bloomberg’s tenure correlates with the rise in child homelessness. There are currently 14,000
homeless families and 25, 000 homeless children in shelters spread across the city. [vi] This is a
staggering increase of 250% in the past 20 years. [vii] As the Institute of Child Poverty and
Homelessness (ICPH) points out, 80,000 children in the NYC school system between 2012-2013 were
homeless at one point. [viii] The number of homeless children in the city is much higher than those in
shelters because most children who experience homeless are outside the shelter system and bounce from
one home to another or end up on the streets. Consider also the fact that these children are experiencing
hunger and it exacerbates the bleakness they experience every day.
According to the Atlas report compiled by ICPH, approximately 85 percent of homeless children living
in homeless shelters are between ages 0-13 (the data looked at children age 0-17).[ix] Of the number of
homeless children by school district, Queens and the Bronx had the highest percentages with 90 percent
of Queens students and 67 percent of Bronx students experiencing homelessness.[x] The percentage of
homeless students in Manhattan and the Brooklyn stood at 50 and 55 percent respectively while Staten
Island had just 47 percent.[xi] There are no enumerations by an institution or agency to showcase the
racial group of homeless children in the NYC shelter system.
Since NYC is obligated to provide emergency housing, the city has been overwhelmed by the explosion
in homelessness. With the problem skyrocketing, the focus has shifted to addressing the chronically
homeless adult population in most cities, while children and families are often forgotten. In 2014,
27,441families applied for homeless shelter but just 11,943 were eligible for admission into the
system.[xii] As Joe Volk, CEO of Community Advocates (a Milwaukee based organization) explains, it
is easier to care for a single homeless adult compare to families as the cost of childcare, purchasing
furniture and food increases the cost for cities.[xiii] In New York City, it costs about $3,000 to house a
family in cluster sites throughout the city.[xiv] Cluster sites, of which there are 3,140 are privately
owned apartments that the city uses to house homeless families so that children are allowed to stay with
their families.[xv] However, numerous reports from news organizations and publications reveal that
landlords at these sites provide substandard housing at a high cost. In a New York Times report by
Vivian Lee, she highlighted the story of Merlinda Fernandez who lived in a cockroach and mice infested
cluster site with her husband and 6 children while the landlord was paid $2,800 a month.[xvi]
Therefore, it has become very costly for the city to provide housing for families.
Donna Anderson, Director of Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness asserts that “there is too
much emphasis on getting families out of shelters rather than making sure they don’t return again.”[xvii]
While that is one aspect of the issue, another aspect is that the city has not devised an exit strategy to get
families and children stable housing and most families end up staying for several years in cluster sites or
shelters.
Thus, as NYC addresses the problem of increasing child homelessness, the question becomes; how can
the city provide services to children and their families to ensure there are no long term devastating
impacts on them? More specifically however, how can policymakers ensure that children are not going
to end up in the shelter system again? For the issue of child homelessness goes beyond socio-economic
issues.
Part II: The Lasting Implications of Children in Homeless Shelters
The lack of services offered to low income families can impact children before they are even born into
the cycle of poverty. As children begin to develop before and after birth, their brains are undergoing
rapid changes that can never be replicated. The human brain begins to build perceptions and
understandings about the outside world that stays with a person their entire life. According to Jack
Shonkoff, the human brain will create, “700 to 1,000 new neural connections every second” during the
first years of life. [xviii] Once connections in the brain have been made and are not changed over the
course of time, they simply create deeper grooves to allow the brain to function more efficiently. This
key time in a child’s development will shape the way they view the world for the rest of their life and
how they react to their surroundings. Children raised in shelters face higher instances of food insecurity,
violence, anxiety, and lack of direct parental care. These outside factors can be internalized as a coping
mechanism and lead to depression, somatization, and delinquency among other lifelong ailments. By
the time these children are old enough to go to school, they have already been burdened with
experiences that will shape their lives through no fault of their own.
The school system is another turning point where homeless children are again put in scenarios that
produce more failures than success’. Due to being raised in high stress environments such as a homeless
shelter, children are four times as likely to be developmentally delayed and twice more likely to have
learning disabilities than their classmates. [xix] Children who are already struggling to learn societal
norms are forced further behind due to the fact that 28% of homeless children will attend two or three
schools in a given year. [xx] These children are being deprived of the daily structure and order that most
people take for granted and pay the long term price for it. By the time children are able to attend school
full time, 47% of those coming from homeless families will struggle with mental ailments such as
depression or anxiety, at rate that is almost three times greater than their peers. [xxi]
There are lingering issues and lasting impacts to child homelessness that will continue to fester if policy
addressing this issue is not implemented. Health related problems, access to education, environmental
concerns, abuse, and economic growth are just a few of the factors that are by products of child
homelessness. Economist, Joseph Stiglitz describes in his article, “Inequality and the American Child,”
how children from low income families make up just 9% of elite universities compared to 74% from
middle and upper income families. [xxii] The ability to obtain a college degree and ameliorate one’s
economic standing is tied to the circumstances of how they were raised.
Part III: Preventative Measures to Break the Cycle
Being born into poverty should not have to be synonymous with being destined to an entire life of
destitution. The ability to rise above negative circumstances and create a more stable life for oneself is
one of the core values for which America is known. Unfortunately, when a parent is having difficulty
meeting even just the most basic survival needs of their family, such as food and shelter, there is little
time or energy left for them to spend thinking about the long-term emotional repercussions of their
living situation on their children. This puts the newest generation of children growing up in homeless
shelters at a much higher risk of becoming homeless adults and being unable to break out of the cycle of
poverty. Addressing child homelessness is one of the most fundamental steps to take in order to give
these children a fighting chance. As stated by the National Center for Children in Poverty, “to enhance
the well-being of low-income families, New York State should […] develop and implement a
comprehensive strategy for upgrading the quality of informal child care” [xxiii]. Increasing the reach of
mental health related social services is imperative to increasing the quality of our citizenry as a whole
and maintaining that upward trend throughout the future.
Consider also the moral obligation that we as a society must care for the most vulnerable in our society.
Their fate is a condition they did not choose but one they were born into. Delaying this problem ensures
that a great percentage of our population will be unable to contribute to society and further burdens
society and the economy as a whole.
Policy Options:
Part I: Increase Minimum Wage
Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently increased the minimum wage of fast food workers to $15, a move that
makes fast food workers in NYC the highest earners in the country. However, this increase does not
apply to other industries as the minimum wage in NY still stands at $8.75.
New York City is currently in the midst of a homeless crisis; which is on par with the homeless crisis of
the Great Depression. [xxiv] However, as homeless advocates have indicated, a fair percentage of
people in homeless shelters are working families and adults. [xxv] Reporter, Mireya Navarro describes
in her New York Times article that, "more than one out of four families in shelters, 28 percent, include at
least one employed adult, city figures show, and 16 percent of single adults in shelters hold jobs."[xxvi]
Sadly, with the increasing living costs, “working several jobs does not mean having a home.” [xxvii] By
increasing the minimum wage, it will alleviate the financial burden on millions of families and have an
effect on child homelessness and the inequality gap in the city.
For many families who work minimum wage jobs or poorly paid occupations, they do not meet the
income threshold required by landlords or rental units. Combined with child care costs and other
miscellaneous expenses, it is difficult for families to stay afloat financially much less get their children
out of the shelter system and into stable homes. Low wages relate to the high incidence of child
homelessness and poverty. According to the Fiscal Policy Institute, 37 percent of New Yorker workers
make less than $15 which does not quantify to a living wage in this city.[xxviii] Shared in the same
report is the revelation that it takes two full-time workers making $15 an hour to afford a barebones
family budget.[xxix] Hence, families are stuck in a conundrum in which they do not make enough
money to rent an apartment but have to keep working to live in a shelter.
Criticism that a hike in wages will increase unemployment are uncertain. This criticism was leveled at
Seattle when they increased the minimum and recent data indicate that Seattle has seen jobs and
employment increases. Additionally, increasing the minimum wage is beneficial to households who
contribute tremendously to the running of this city. Mayor De Blasio and City Comptroller, Scott
Stringer have called for a hike in the city’s minimum wage.
There are economic benefits to increasing the minimum wage and if we are to tackle the issue of child
homelessness, increasing the minimum wage is a reform that has positive results for families and
children. In order to stop the cycle of poverty and address issues that will only continue to worsen,
legislature must be introduced and laws enacted to close the disparities gap that exist. It costs the city,
$3,000 a month to house a family in a homeless shelter, [xxx] however, this is a financial burden that
can be mollified and become avoidable should the minimum wage increase.
Part II: Long-Term Supportive Housing
One of the key components to ending the cycle of poverty among homeless children is intervention at a
young age. A study of children who have been successful despite being born into these bleak conditions
has offered insight into what factors contributed to their success. Parents who navigated their children
through the rigors of shelter life cited direct involvement with their children, relationships with teachers
and intervention specialists, and a network of caring adults as the main reasons for their children’s’
success. [xxxi] These elements, if successfully replicated can all help to elevate a generation of children
out of shelters and into a promising future.
The easiest way to make sure that parents have a continued closeness is to make sure that children are
not being separated as they often are in instances of prolonged homelessness. By taking a portion of the
$241 million that New York City spent putting homeless families in dilapidated cluster sites the city can
appropriate those funds towards long term supportive housing. This would help the city consolidate
multiple problems such as, housing, mental health, social programs, with one action. [xxxii] These
housing options could offer counseling and addiction treatment problems on lower floors while offering
family apartments on higher levels. This action would not only keep the families intact and stable, but
would mitigate the main reason for low income families avoiding treatment; which is lack of funds for
travel. Families would be able to eliminate the worry of housing by simply taking care of their
immediate issues and would be able to prepare better for their future.
Another positive stemming from a commitment to long-term supportive housing is that, it allows
children to remain in the same school district without interruption. This allows teachers and support
faculty to develop relationships with not only the students but with the parents as well. Teachers and
scholastic support have been listed by families as more important than food when it comes to the value
placed on how it will help keep children from staying in poverty. [xxxiii]
The implementation of long-term supportive housing in New York City is not an extra expense that the
city cannot afford, but rather a corrective measure about how much is currently being spent. The current
solution of taking people and shuffling them from place to place has proven to be a failure for the
thousands of adults and children who are currently homeless in New York. There is no reason that
allocation changes cannot be made in order to avoid dooming another generation and placing more
children at risk. The effects of chronic homelessness on children cannot be denied, but that does not
mean that we do not possess the means or motivation to make the proper changes necessary.
Part III: Educating Parents
There are several policy options that could serve to meet the undeniable need for increased accessibility
to mental health services for impoverished families, all of which are based on the core value of being
proactive and recognizing the importance of early intervention. One solution would be to increase
funding to programs focused on early childhood development and make available these specialists to
families in the shelter system. These trained professionals provide invaluable assistance to parents and
children in a multitude of ways. The specialist would have a caseload of low-income families and
through home visits and continuous relationship development, risk factors such as abuse, neglect, mental
health issues and substance abuse issues are identified and then addressed with a plan of action. By
providing state funded support to help get the children off to a physically, mentally, and emotionally
healthy start, their ability to not only survive, but also thrive, is increased exponentially. The specialists
serve as advocates for these families by connecting them to services such as welfare, helping them apply
for food stamps, or guiding them through the process of obtaining Medicaid. These specialists differ
from just general social workers however, because they go beyond helping families and children meet
just their basic needs. Using their early childhood development knowledge they also provide guidance in
child rearing promote positive interactions between parents and babies. This could be done through
weekly or bi-weekly assessments to determine what changes need to be made with the methods being
utilized, and to ensure that the best and most beneficial course of action is taken. The objective of
increasing the number of early childhood development specialists is to ensure a higher quality of life for
the coming generations, which in the future will contribute to the improvement of society as a whole. In
order for any of these positive effects to be seen, the public first has to know that these programs even
exist, and the rigid constraints of acceptance into them must be softened.
Another angle that would be an efficient way of reaching parents would be through educational
programs provided by their employer(s). As highlighted in policy option #1, there are numerous working
families who live in shelters. These programs would consist of information sessions led by mental health
professionals and would emphasize the positive effects of a child’s emotional stability. These programs
would teach them important life skills such as healthy coping mechanisms, for parents to use and also
pass on to their children. The government could provide financial incentives to companies that choose to
implement these programs, such as tax breaks that are determined on a sliding scale depending on
participation rates, which would further serve to encourage employers to make the program as accessible
as possible to their employees.
From an economic standpoint the benefits of increased participation in education programs far outweigh
the costs. Ensuring the proper care and rearing of a child living below the poverty line and the shelter
system would be positive reform. The harm of inequality and child homelessness is that it is not
beneficial to society and robs the city of a sizable portion of its citizenry who could positively contribute
to its prosperous future.
Recommendation
In their response paper the panel believed that long term supportive housing is the best policy option for
helping to fix the current homeless epidemic. They acknowledge that this option will help keep families
together and will increase the stability in families that are currently in volatile situations. The panel felt
as though there should be more done to work with the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher
programs, otherwise known as section 8, but that it needed to be done on a federal level. As
representatives of the city they felt as though there was little that could be done to meaningfully change
the problem at the city level.
The homeless problem in New York City is at a record high and is climbing higher each month. With
the current real estate market that trend is showing no signs of slowing down and as the winter months
settle in, there is the potential for a preventable disaster at hand. With respect to the esteemed panel it is
not simply enough to say that this problem should be handled at the federal level with federal money
only. New York City cannot spend nearly a billion dollars on a problem and then cry that the funding is
not enough. The biggest persistent problem with homelessness is that each agency wants to act as
though another agency should be taking care of the problem. There needs to be more done from not
only the mayor’s office, but from nonprofits or special interest groups as well. Increasing the
coordinated efforts of both non-government organizations (NGO’s) and government organizations is
essential for making headway and helping to get families out of shelters and into stable housing
environments. The state or federal government can alleviate some financial pressures by raising the
minimum wage, investing in long term supportive housing, and contracting with nonprofit organizations
who work with families in the crosshairs of poverty. The mayor’s office has an opportunity to back up
the campaign promises of elevating people from poverty and off the streets. The time has come to dial
back the rhetoric and to focus on tangible solutions to help those who need it the most.
[i] Brown, Arlene. “Bloomberg by the Numbers” The Nation 18 Apr. 2013. Web.
[ii] Roberts, Sam. “Gap Between Manhattan’s Rich and Poor Is Greatest in the US: Census Finds” NY
Times 17 Sept. 2014. Web.
[iii] Holland, Joshua. “Tale of Two Cities: New York Has Become the Capital of Inequality” 18 Sept.
2014. Web.
[iv] http://www.cccnewyork.org/blog/new-census-data-shows-increase-in-child-poverty-in-nyc/
[v] “Advocate: NYC’s Homeless Crisis Has Reached Historic Proportions” Fault Lines. 2015. Al
Jazeera Online. 16 Sept. 2015. Web.
[vi] Ibid
[vii] Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness. The Atlas of Family Homelessness in New York
City. Oct. 2014 New York: Author.
[viii] Ibid
[ix] Ibid
[x] Ibid
[xi] Ibid
[xii] Ibid
[xiii] Kaufman, Greg. “America is Ignoring Homeless Families” Moyers and Company 21 Apr. 2013.
Web.
[xiv] Ganeva, Tana. “Conditions Were ‘Bluntly Dickensian’”: The Disgrace of New York’s Homeless
Shelters” Alternet 9 Jul. 2015. Web.
[xv] Bah, Abdulai. “New York City’s Homeless Find Little Comfort In Shelter System” Al Jazeera 30
Mar. 2015. Web
[xvi] Yee, Vivian. “Homeless Families Endure Roaches, Mice and Failed Promises” New York Times
28 Aug. 2015. Web.
[xvii] Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness. The Atlas of Family Homelessness in New
York City. Oct. 2014 New York: Author.
[xviii]Rafferty, Yvonne, and Marybeth Shinn. “The Impact of Homelessness on Children” American
Psychologist 46.11 (1991): 1170-1179. Web.
[xxix]Goodman, Lisa A., Leonard Saxe, and Mary Harvey. “Homelessness as Psychological Trauma:
Broadening Perspectives.” American Psychologist 46.11 (1991): 1219-1225. Web.
[xx] Doorwaysva.org, “Impact of Homelessness on Children | Doorways for Women and Families.”
N.P., 2015. 2 Oct. 2015. Web.
[xxi] Hart-Shegos, Ellen. Homelessness and Its Effects on Children. 1st ed. Family Housing Fund, 1999.
2 Oct. 2015. Web.
[xxii] Stiglitz, Joseph. “Inequality and the American Child” Moyers and Company 30 Dec. 2014. Web.
[xxiii] OCFS: Office of Children and Family Services, “New York State’s FY 2010-2014 Final Report
and FY 2015-2019 Child and Family Services Plan,” June 2014.
<http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/reports/FFY%202010%20%202014%20Final%20Report%20and%202015%20%202019%20CFSP%206%2025%2014%20Final.pdf>
[xxiv] NYU: Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Policy. The Wagner Review. “Working and
Homeless: A Paradoxical Reality for Many New York Families” 30 Apr. 2015. New York: Author.
[xxv] “Advocate: NYC’s Homeless Crisis Has ‘Reached Historic Proportions” Fault Lines. 2015. Al
Jazeera Online. 16 Sept. 2015. Web.
[xxvi] Navarro, Mireya. “In New York, Having a Job or 2, Doesn’t Mean Having a Home” New York
Times 17 Sept. 2013. Web.
[xxvii] Ibid
[xxviii] Parrott, James. “Low-Wage Workers and the High Cost of Living in New York City” Fiscal
Policy Institute 27 Feb. 2014. Author
[xxix] Ibid
[xxx] Tempey, Nathan. “Inside the Notoriously Privately Run Homeless Shelter That Costs the City
Millions” The Gothamist 14 Jul. 2015. Web.
[xxxi] Hart-Shegos, Ellen. Homelessness and Its Effects on Children. 1st ed. Family Housing Fund,
1999. 2 Oct. 2015. Web.
[xxxii] Smith, Greg. “City Spent $241 Million Housing Homeless Families in Hellholes” New York
Daily News 2 Oct. 2015. Web.
[xxxiii]Monn, Amy et al. Risk and Resilience In Homeless Children. 1st ed. St. Paul: University of
Minnesota, 2014. 3 Oct. 2015. Web.
APPENDIX
During Bloomberg’s time as Mayor of NYC:
-Inequality widened: Richest 1 percent earned 39 percent
of total city income in 2012; 27 percent in 2002.
Source: Fiscal Policy Institute
-Funding for human services dried up: down 8 percent
when adjusted for inflation, between 2008 and 2013.
Source: Fiscal Policy Institute
-Rents rose: by 25 percent between 2005 and 2011.
Source: Community Service Society [PDF]
-Real median wages fell: by 8 percent between 2008 and
2011. Source: Fiscal Policy Institute
-The homeless population exploded: by 61 percent under
Bloomberg, to 50,000 men, women and children in shelters
each night.
Source: Coalition for the Homeless
Median household incomes for all households across the United States stagnated in real terms
between 1990 and 2011 declining by -0.6% from $60,546 to $60,200. In NYC, there was a more
significant decline of -4.7% from $63,149 to $60,180.
Denver’s “Housing First” Program: A Subsidized Housing Success Story
The Cycle of Poverty