2026-01-12 Homelessness Prevention: Upstream Solutions That Work
Homelessness Prevention: Upstream Solutions That Work
A single father of two receives an eviction notice after missing rent following an unexpected car repair that drained his savings. In one scenario, his family cycles through shelters, motels, and the couches of friends for months before eventually finding new housing, with the children changing schools twice and the father losing his job due to unreliable transportation. In another scenario, a community prevention program connects him with emergency rental assistance within 72 hours of receiving the eviction notice, provides a brief financial counseling session, and helps him negotiate a repayment plan with his landlord. His family stays housed, the children remain in their school, and the father keeps his job. The total cost of the prevention intervention is roughly $2,500. The cost of the emergency shelter, social services, healthcare, lost productivity, and educational disruption in the first scenario exceeds $30,000. This is not a hypothetical comparison. It reflects real program data demonstrating that preventing homelessness is not only more humane but dramatically more cost-effective than responding to it after the fact. Yet the vast majority of public and philanthropic spending on homelessness continues to flow toward crisis response rather than prevention. At the Rissover Foundation, we support upstream approaches that keep people housed by addressing the predictable triggers of housing loss before they escalate into homelessness, because the best solution to homelessness is ensuring it never happens in the first place.
The Scope of Homelessness
Understanding the true scope of homelessness requires looking beyond the visible population of people sleeping on streets and in shelters. On any given night in the United States, over half a million people experience homelessness. But this point-in-time count captures only a fraction of the problem. Over the course of a year, an estimated 1.5 million people use emergency shelters or transitional housing, and millions more experience hidden homelessness, doubling up with family or friends, living in vehicles, or staying in motels because they have no permanent home.
The demographics of homelessness challenge common stereotypes. While single adults make up the most visible homeless population, families with children represent roughly one-third of the sheltered homeless population. Children under the age of six are among the fastest-growing segments of the homeless population, experiencing housing instability during the most critical years of brain development. Unaccompanied youth, veterans, domestic violence survivors, and people leaving incarceration all face elevated risks of homelessness that require tailored prevention and intervention strategies.
Racial disparities in homelessness are stark and persistent. Black Americans represent approximately 13 percent of the general population but nearly 40 percent of the homeless population. Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanic Americans also experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to their share of the population. These disparities reflect the cumulative impacts of systemic racism in housing, employment, education, and criminal justice systems that continue to shape who is most vulnerable to housing loss.
The causes of homelessness are structural rather than primarily individual. While substance use, mental illness, and personal crises can trigger housing loss, they do so within a context of structural conditions that make homelessness possible: insufficient affordable housing, wages that fail to keep pace with housing costs, inadequate social safety nets, and systems that discharge people from institutions without housing plans. In a housing market with adequate affordable supply and sufficient income supports, individual vulnerabilities would rarely result in homelessness.
The economic costs of homelessness extend far beyond shelter and social services. Emergency room visits, law enforcement contacts, incarceration, child welfare interventions, and lost economic productivity associated with homelessness generate enormous public costs. Studies consistently find that it costs communities more to leave people homeless than to provide them with stable housing and supportive services. This economic argument, combined with the moral imperative to prevent suffering, makes a compelling case for shifting resources toward prevention.
Upstream Prevention Strategies
Prevention works best when it reaches people before they lose their housing, addressing the triggers of housing instability at the earliest possible moment. Upstream prevention strategies identify people at risk of homelessness and provide targeted assistance that keeps them housed, avoiding the cascading consequences that make recovery from homelessness so difficult and costly.
Screening and targeting systems identify households at elevated risk of housing loss so that prevention resources can be directed to those most likely to benefit. Risk factors include recent job loss, domestic violence, eviction filings, discharge from hospitals or correctional facilities, aging out of foster care, and sudden income reductions. Effective targeting ensures that limited prevention resources reach the households that need them most, rather than being spread too thinly across all applicants.
Legal assistance for tenants facing eviction is one of the most cost-effective prevention strategies available. Many evictions proceed because tenants lack legal representation, even when they have valid defenses. Right-to-counsel programs that provide free legal assistance to tenants in eviction proceedings have been shown to reduce eviction rates dramatically. In jurisdictions that have implemented these programs, eviction filings have decreased substantially, keeping thousands of families housed while reducing court costs and shelter expenses.
Mediation between landlords and tenants resolves disputes before they escalate to eviction proceedings. Trained mediators help parties reach agreements on issues like rent payment plans, maintenance complaints, and lease violations. Mediation is faster and cheaper than court proceedings for both parties while preserving housing stability and landlord-tenant relationships.
Financial assistance at critical moments prevents the temporary cash flow disruptions that trigger evictions among otherwise stable households. A car breakdown, medical bill, or temporary job loss can create a gap between income and rent that, without assistance, leads to eviction and potential homelessness. Flexible emergency funds that provide small amounts of financial assistance quickly, without extensive application processes, can prevent housing loss at a fraction of the cost of emergency shelter.
Case management and service navigation help households address the underlying factors that create housing vulnerability. Case managers connect families with employment services, benefits enrollment, childcare, transportation assistance, and other resources that stabilize household finances and reduce the likelihood of future housing crises. This holistic approach addresses multiple dimensions of housing instability rather than treating each crisis in isolation.
Emergency Rental Assistance
Emergency rental assistance programs provide direct financial help to households that have fallen behind on rent and face eviction. When designed and administered effectively, these programs prevent homelessness at remarkably low cost while keeping families in their homes and communities.
The scale of emergency rental assistance expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the federal government distributed over $46 billion in Emergency Rental Assistance through the Treasury Department. This unprecedented investment provided critical data about what works and what does not in rental assistance program design and administration.
Speed of delivery is the single most important factor in emergency rental assistance effectiveness. Households facing eviction need help within days, not weeks or months. Programs that require extensive documentation, multiple appointments, and lengthy approval processes often fail to deliver assistance before eviction occurs. The most effective programs streamline applications, accept self-attestation when verification would cause dangerous delays, and distribute funds within 72 hours of application approval.
Payment directly to landlords, combined with direct engagement with property owners, increases program effectiveness and landlord willingness to participate. When landlords understand that assistance programs will pay reliably and promptly, they become more willing to work with tenants rather than pursuing eviction. Some programs establish ongoing relationships with landlords, creating channels for future assistance that prevent eviction filings altogether.
Layering financial assistance with other supports maximizes long-term housing stability. Emergency rental assistance that addresses only the immediate rent shortfall without connecting households to ongoing services may simply postpone homelessness rather than preventing it. Programs that combine rental assistance with financial coaching, benefits enrollment, employment services, and other supports address the root causes of housing instability.
Targeting assistance to households most likely to become homeless without intervention maximizes program impact. Not every household that falls behind on rent will become homeless; many would resolve their situation through other means. Effective programs use assessment tools and data analysis to identify households at highest risk and direct limited resources accordingly, avoiding both under-serving those in greatest need and providing assistance to households that would have stabilized without intervention.
Landlord engagement and education complement tenant-facing assistance programs. Many landlords, particularly small-scale property owners, prefer keeping existing tenants to the expense and uncertainty of eviction and re-leasing. Programs that help landlords understand available assistance resources, navigate application processes on behalf of their tenants, and access financial support reduce adversarial dynamics while preventing displacement.
Rapid Rehousing
Rapid rehousing programs help people who have recently become homeless move into permanent housing as quickly as possible, providing short-term rental assistance and support services that stabilize households and prevent prolonged homelessness. While not technically prevention, rapid rehousing operates on prevention principles by intervening at the earliest moment of homelessness to prevent it from becoming chronic.
The core philosophy of rapid rehousing is that housing is the platform from which other problems are best addressed. Rather than requiring people to achieve sobriety, employment, or treatment compliance before accessing housing, rapid rehousing provides housing first and then connects people with services. This approach recognizes that homelessness itself creates barriers to stability, including disrupted sleep, difficulty maintaining employment, inability to store medications, and the trauma of living without shelter, and that removing those barriers is the most effective first step toward recovery.
Rapid rehousing typically provides three components: housing identification services that help households find and secure available rental units; short-term rental assistance that covers security deposits and initial months of rent while households stabilize their income; and case management services that connect households with employment, benefits, healthcare, and other resources needed for long-term housing stability.
Evidence consistently demonstrates that rapid rehousing is effective for the majority of households that experience homelessness. Studies show that 80 to 85 percent of families that participate in rapid rehousing programs remain housed one year after assistance ends. The approach is significantly less expensive than shelter stays while producing better outcomes for families, particularly children whose educational and developmental trajectories are disrupted by prolonged homelessness.
Landlord recruitment and relationship building are essential components of successful rapid rehousing programs. In tight rental markets, finding landlords willing to rent to households with eviction histories, limited income, or poor credit requires dedicated outreach and relationship management. Programs that offer landlord incentives such as signing bonuses, damage mitigation funds, and guaranteed communication from case managers successfully expand housing options for rapid rehousing participants.
Cultural responsiveness in rapid rehousing ensures that services are accessible and effective for diverse populations. Programs must address language barriers, cultural differences in housing preferences, discrimination in housing markets, and the specific needs of populations including immigrants, LGBTQ youth, and survivors of domestic violence. One-size-fits-all approaches to rapid rehousing fail to serve the diverse populations that experience homelessness.
Supportive Housing Models
Permanent supportive housing combines affordable housing with voluntary support services for people who have experienced chronic homelessness and face ongoing challenges including serious mental illness, substance use disorders, chronic health conditions, or disabilities. This model represents the most evidence-based solution for the most vulnerable segment of the homeless population.
The Housing First approach, which provides permanent housing without preconditions like sobriety or treatment participation, has transformed homelessness policy over the past two decades. Research consistently demonstrates that Housing First programs achieve housing retention rates of 80 to 90 percent among chronically homeless individuals, populations that traditional shelter and transitional housing systems struggled to serve effectively.
Supportive housing integrates on-site or closely linked services that help residents maintain housing stability and work toward personal goals. These services may include mental health counseling, substance use treatment, primary healthcare, employment support, life skills training, and community integration activities. Services are voluntary and tenant-driven, respecting residents’ autonomy while providing the support they need to maintain housing and improve their well-being.
The financial case for supportive housing is well-established. Chronically homeless individuals generate enormous public costs through repeated emergency room visits, psychiatric hospitalizations, incarceration, and shelter stays. Supportive housing reduces these costs substantially, with studies consistently finding that the savings in emergency services offset a significant portion of housing and service costs. In many cases, supportive housing is cost-neutral or even cost-saving compared to the alternative of leaving people homeless.
Design and location matter for supportive housing success. Projects that integrate supportive housing into residential neighborhoods, design buildings that are visually consistent with surrounding architecture, and incorporate community spaces and amenities generate less neighborhood opposition while supporting resident well-being and community integration. Scattered-site models that place supportive housing units in regular apartment buildings throughout communities offer another approach that avoids concentration effects while promoting integration.
Peer support services, in which formerly homeless individuals provide mentoring and assistance to current supportive housing residents, enhance program effectiveness while creating employment pathways for people with lived experience of homelessness. Peers bring credibility, empathy, and practical knowledge that professional service providers cannot replicate. Their involvement also demonstrates that recovery and stability are achievable, providing powerful motivation for residents working toward their own goals.
Special Populations and Tailored Approaches
Effective homelessness prevention recognizes that different populations face different risk factors, barriers, and needs. Tailored approaches that address the specific circumstances of vulnerable groups are more effective than generic programs that treat all people at risk of homelessness as a single population.
Youth homelessness requires approaches that address family conflict, aging out of foster care, LGBTQ discrimination, and the developmental needs of young people still forming identities and building adult life skills. Youth-specific prevention programs include family mediation and reunification services, transitional living programs for young people who cannot safely return home, education and employment supports that build self-sufficiency, and host home programs that provide temporary shelter with caring adults while longer-term solutions are developed.
Veteran homelessness has been a national priority, with significant progress achieved through dedicated programs. Prevention efforts for veterans include targeted outreach to service members transitioning to civilian life, specialized employment programs that translate military skills into civilian careers, clinical services for post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, and other service-connected conditions, and legal assistance with discharge upgrades that affect benefit eligibility. These targeted investments have reduced veteran homelessness substantially over the past decade.
Domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women and families. Prevention must address both immediate safety needs and the economic consequences of leaving abusive relationships. Flexible financial assistance, transitional housing, legal services, employment support, and childcare help survivors achieve safety and stability simultaneously. Programs must be designed with trauma-informed principles and operated by organizations with expertise in domestic violence dynamics.
People leaving incarceration face extreme barriers to housing, including legal restrictions on renting to people with criminal records, loss of social connections during imprisonment, and limited income and employment opportunities. Reentry housing programs that begin planning before release, provide transitional housing during the immediate post-release period, and offer ongoing support for permanent housing placement prevent the revolving door between incarceration and homelessness.
Older adults face increasing homelessness risk as fixed incomes fail to keep pace with rising housing costs and health-related expenses. Prevention for seniors includes benefits maximization to ensure receipt of all available income supports, home modification programs that allow aging in place, medical-legal partnerships that address health-related housing threats, and senior-specific affordable housing development that provides accessible units with appropriate services.
Community Land Trusts and Affordable Housing
Community land trusts represent an innovative approach to maintaining permanent housing affordability by separating ownership of land from ownership of buildings. Under the community land trust model, a nonprofit organization owns the land and leases it to homeowners or rental property operators under long-term, renewable ground leases that include affordability restrictions. This structure ensures that homes remain affordable in perpetuity, preventing the displacement that occurs when market-rate housing prices rise beyond the reach of community members.
The community land trust model addresses a fundamental limitation of conventional affordable housing programs: the temporary nature of affordability restrictions. Subsidized housing units typically revert to market rate after affordability periods expire, requiring constant new investment to maintain the affordable housing supply. Community land trusts create permanently affordable units that do not require ongoing subsidy renewal, generating lasting community benefit from one-time investments.
Community land trust homeownership provides wealth-building opportunities for low-income families while maintaining affordability for future buyers. Homeowners build equity through mortgage payments and home improvements, but resale prices are limited by formulas that balance the homeowner’s equity interest with the community’s interest in maintaining affordability. This shared equity approach enables homeownership for families who could not access market-rate housing while ensuring that the benefits of affordable homeownership are available to future generations.
Community land trusts also develop and manage rental housing that remains permanently affordable. By controlling land costs and operating on a mission-driven rather than profit-maximizing basis, community land trusts can maintain rental units at below-market rates without ongoing operating subsidies. This approach is particularly valuable in high-cost housing markets where market-rate rents far exceed what low-income households can afford.
Community governance is a defining feature of the land trust model. Residents, community members, and public interest representatives share governance of the trust, ensuring that housing decisions reflect community priorities rather than investor interests. This democratic structure builds community ownership and engagement while creating accountability mechanisms that ensure trust operations serve their intended purpose.
Scaling community land trusts requires public policy support including dedicated funding for land acquisition, technical assistance for emerging trusts, and regulatory frameworks that accommodate the shared equity model. Growing numbers of municipalities are partnering with community land trusts, dedicating public land and affordable housing funds to trust development as a strategy for creating permanently affordable housing that remains a community asset across generations.
Policy Approaches to Homelessness Prevention
Effective homelessness prevention requires policy changes at local, state, and federal levels that address the structural conditions creating housing instability. While direct service programs help individual households, policy reforms can change the systems that produce homelessness in the first place.
Affordable housing production must increase dramatically to address the fundamental supply shortage driving housing instability. The nation faces a deficit of millions of affordable rental units available to extremely low-income households. Closing this gap requires increased public investment in affordable housing development, reform of land use and zoning regulations that restrict housing production, and incentive structures that encourage private development of affordable units alongside market-rate housing.
Tenant protection policies prevent displacement and stabilize housing for vulnerable households. Just-cause eviction requirements, rent stabilization programs, source-of-income discrimination prohibitions, and notice requirements for rent increases all help tenants maintain housing stability. These policies are not anti-landlord; they create predictable rules that benefit responsible landlords while protecting tenants from arbitrary displacement.
Income support policies address the demand side of housing affordability by ensuring that households have sufficient income to afford available housing. Minimum wage increases, expansion of earned income tax credits, reform of public benefit programs, and childcare subsidies all strengthen household budgets and reduce the gap between income and housing costs that puts families at risk of homelessness.
Healthcare policy intersects with homelessness prevention in multiple ways. Medicaid expansion has been associated with reduced homelessness in states that adopted it, likely because healthcare coverage prevents medical debt and ensures access to mental health and substance use treatment that stabilize housing. Discharge planning requirements that prevent hospitals, psychiatric facilities, and correctional institutions from releasing people to homelessness are essential components of prevention-oriented healthcare policy.
Data systems and coordinated entry improve the efficiency and effectiveness of homelessness prevention and response systems. Coordinated entry processes standardize assessment and prioritization across providers, ensuring that the most vulnerable households receive services first and that multiple providers do not duplicate efforts. Integrated data systems allow communities to track outcomes, identify system gaps, and allocate resources based on evidence rather than anecdote.
Cross-system collaboration is essential because homelessness intersects with multiple public systems including child welfare, criminal justice, healthcare, education, and workforce development. Prevention strategies that bridge these systems, such as discharge planning protocols, shared data systems, and joint funding arrangements, address homelessness more comprehensively than any single system can achieve alone.
The Path Forward
Preventing homelessness requires a fundamental shift in how communities allocate resources and organize systems of care. Rather than waiting until people lose their housing and then attempting to help them regain it, prevention-oriented systems identify risk early, intervene quickly, and address root causes of housing instability before they produce homelessness.
This shift requires political will and public investment. Prevention is less visible than crisis response, making it harder to generate public support and funding. The benefits of prevention accrue over time and across multiple systems, making them harder to measure and attribute than the immediate outputs of shelter beds and meals served. Advocates must make the case that preventing homelessness is not only more humane but more fiscally responsible than allowing it to occur and then responding to its consequences.
Community engagement in homelessness prevention must include the voices of people with lived experience of housing instability and homelessness. These individuals understand the systems they have navigated, the barriers they have encountered, and the interventions that would have made a difference in their lives. Their expertise should inform program design, policy development, and system reform at every level.
The private sector has essential roles to play in homelessness prevention. Employers who provide living wages, predictable scheduling, and emergency assistance funds contribute to housing stability for their workers. Landlords who participate in prevention programs and accept housing subsidies expand access to stable housing. Financial institutions that offer responsible lending products and financial education help families build the economic resilience that prevents housing crises.
Innovation in prevention approaches must continue. Predictive analytics that identify households at risk of homelessness before they seek help, mobile crisis response teams that intervene at the moment of housing loss, and integrated service platforms that connect prevention resources across systems all represent promising directions for improving prevention effectiveness and efficiency.
At the Rissover Foundation, we believe that homelessness is not an inevitable feature of our communities but a solvable problem that demands upstream thinking and coordinated action. Every family that stays housed because of a timely prevention intervention represents not only a crisis averted but a life trajectory preserved. Children remain in their schools. Parents keep their jobs. Families maintain the community connections and daily routines that anchor stable lives. The evidence is clear that prevention works, that it costs less than crisis response, and that it produces better outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. What remains is the collective will to prioritize it. When we invest in keeping people housed, we invest in the foundation upon which everything else, health, education, employment, and community participation, is built. That foundation is worth protecting, and the tools to protect it are within our reach if we choose to use them.
Learn More
To learn more about homelessness prevention and how you can support housing stability in your community, visit: