Today the Supreme Court is hearing the most significant case related to the rights of those experiencing homelessness in U.S. history. The case, Johnson v. Grants Pass, will determine if cities are able to punish people for acts such as sleeping outside in a tent or in their car, even when they have no other place to go.
At its core, the Johnson v. Grants Pass case is about individual rights. However, the case also serves to highlight a larger, societal issue at play: in most cities and states throughout the country, inadequate funding for social services leaves many with no options for support at the time when they need it most.
The U.S.’ social safety net has been financially neglected for quite some time. Yet, the historic investments made into these systems during the COVID-19 pandemic provide evidence of the potential widespread benefits of recommitting to investing in these systems. During the height of the pandemic, the federal government allocated more than $7 billion to Connecticut through programs such as the CARES Act of 2020 and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to support the state’s economy, workforce, health care system, and social safety net.
In terms of support for housing and homeless services, Connecticut received about $270 million in federal emergency rental assistance (ERA) funds, more than $6 million from FEMA for costs related to non-congregate shelters, and enacted an eviction moratorium to ensure renters were able to stay housed.
During this time, researchers at Yale School of Public Health’s Housing and Health Equity Lab found there to be positive benefits of such funding. For instance, in a study I conducted in spring 2021 examining the experiences of those moved from congregate shelters to hotels during the pandemic, I found that moving to non-congregate shelters provided individuals with stability through having a consistent room, access to important amenities, and a sense of privacy and safety. This allowed individuals to gain more control in their lives and make changes that benefitted their health and well-being.
Conversely, research which has examined individuals’ experiences in the absence of such funding have found that the scarcity of resources and subsequent need to ration services such as shelter beds or housing vouchers serves to harm individuals’ health and wellbeing, prolong experiences of homelessness, and reduce individuals’ ability to move from homelessness back to more secure and stable housing.
The benefits of pandemic-era investments and harms of neglecting our social service systems are clear. Despite this, much of the funding provided during the pandemic was time-limited and has since expired, and both homelessness and the affordable housing shortage are at crisis levels.
In a report released last month, the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that Connecticut maintains only 34 affordable and available rental homes per 100 extremely low-income renter households. This means that when changes such as the loss of a job, death of a loved one, or health crisis, poor housing conditions, or a multitude of other factors force someone to move, many find themselves stuck in an impossible situation of having nowhere to go. This leads many residents to engage with Connecticut’s Homeless Response System.
Connecticut’s Homeless Response System currently lacks the funding to adequately meet the needs of all residents seeking support. According to Connecticut’s point-in-time count for 2023, 3,015 people across the state were experiencing homelessness on a given night in January, whereas the state maintained only 2,431 emergency shelter beds on that same night. This shortage of shelter beds and capacity, along with other factors such as shelters’ eligibility requirements, stringent rules, and safety concerns, contributed to about 500 of those 3,015 individuals having to reside outside in unsheltered locations such as parks, sidewalks, tents, or cars.
According to recent data shared by the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness (CCEH), the homelessness crisis in Connecticut has only worsened over the last year. As of late February 2024, the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness throughout the state doubled to more than 1,000 people. Furthermore, in January 2024 alone, there were 7,711 new 2-1-1 calls to Connecticut’s Coordinated Access Network (CAN) regarding a need for housing assistance.
It is evident that more safe and affordable housing is needed throughout the state. Until that becomes a reality, however, investments in Connecticut’s Homeless Response System are critical to ensure that at a minimum, individuals can access the shelter and support services they need. As described in CCEH’s 2024 legislative agenda, the state should invest $20 million to strengthen and stabilize the Homeless Response System, using the funding to support components such as the shelter and outreach workforce, a flexible funding subsidy pool, and the state’s cold weather emergency response. While this type of investment would not solve the housing crisis entirely, it would be taking an important step in the direction of achieving that goal.
As the Johnson v. Grants Pass case is heard, I urge everyone to consider that if cities and states committed to investments such as those outlined in CCEH’s legislative agenda, cases seeking to criminalize acts such as sleeping on the street might not exist in the first place. It is critical that nobody be ticketed, fined, or arrested for sleeping outside. And perhaps more importantly, we must make it the goal that nobody should need to sleep in these places at all.
Leah Robinson is a Researcher at the Yale School of Public Health.