THIS ISSUE BRIEF is part of a series for CommonWealth Beacon examining a variety of controversial local and national issues, focusing on specific policy proposals that are under active consideration. The premise of these essays, as outlined here and here, is that many important public policy issues are more complicated than the most fervent adherents to either side usually acknowledge, a dynamic that often hinders our ability to engage in thoughtful debate.  (Other essays in the series have addressed proposals for free community college and free MBTA service.)

For each proposal in the series, I provide some basic background, with a high-level framing of the disagreement and the polarized “bumper sticker” arguments on both sides. I then present what I believe to be the most reasonable evidence-based cases, pro and con. Each issue brief concludes with reflections on possible avenues for finding common ground or higher ground and some basic data points, with links to useful resources, to help facilitate a rational and civil dialogue, ideally leading to agreement or at least understanding, if not in the halls of power, then maybe just around the dinner table.  

The proposal:

Restrict the existing state guarantee of emergency housing assistance to only homeless families who are United States citizens and have been residents of Massachusetts for at least one year.

Background:

In 1983, Massachusetts enacted the first-in-the-nation “right-to-shelter” law, guaranteeing all homeless families with children and pregnant women access to temporary housing and other emergency services. Forty years later, Massachusetts is still the only state with such a law.  New York City has a similar policy, which dates back to a 1981 court mandate.

Last summer, in the wake of a significant increase in migrant families coming across the US-Mexican border, Gov. Maura Healey issued an executive order declaring a state of emergency in order to suspend the statutory housing guarantee as the state’s shelter system was reaching its maximum capacity and the projected costs to the state budget were rising rapidly. Mayor Eric Adams has taken similar action in New York City. 

In September 2023, Massachusetts state Rep. Peter Durant (now a state senator) filed a bill (HD 4561) to restrict the entitlement to shelter to US citizens with at least one-year of Massachusetts residency.

Sticking Points and Bumper Stickers:

Because the current spike in homelessness is being driven by an influx of people entering the United States across the southern border, Massachusetts’s right-to-shelter law has become entangled in the larger issue of immigration policy.

Build the Wall!: Massachusetts’s reputation for generous entitlement benefits is a magnet for migrants coming over the southern border, creating a vicious cycle that leads to more and more government spending and more and more in-migration.  The result is an unfair burden on Massachusetts taxpayers.

All are Welcome!: Regardless of what the federal government or any other state does, Massachusetts should hold itself to a higher moral standard, by doing whatever it takes to find adequate shelter for our homeless families, no matter who they are, where they come from, or how long they’ve been here.

EVIDENCE-BASED CASE IN FAVOR: 

The capacity of the Commonwealth’s emergency shelter system has been overwhelmed during the past three years by surging immigration and longer-term shelter stays. It is no longer tenable for the state to sustain its housing guarantee indefinitely, either in terms of fiscal resources or shelter capacity.

As of January 2023, the homeless population was about double what it was in 1983 and the number of homeless families was five to six times greater. On a per-capita basis, Massachusetts’s homeless population was about 40 percent higher than the national average, and almost twice that of Florida. The numbers are even higher now, with 7,500 families living in emergency housing provided by the state (not counting so-called overflow shelters), which translates into about 24,000 people, about half of whom are recent immigrants. 

According to the Healey administration, the cost of the emergency housing program will require over $1 billion in additional state funding through fiscal year 2025. Annual state spending for family shelters and services was about $180 million in fiscal year 2021, before the current surge began.

Increases in immigration, especially among asylum seekers and people with “temporary protected status,” are affecting almost every state, but Massachusetts attracts a disproportionate share. One measure of where migrants go after they enter the United States is the location of asylum filings. In 2022, there were almost 18,000 asylum filings in the Commonwealth, close to seven percent of all asylum filings in the United States that year, over three times the Massachusetts share of the total US population.

Notwithstanding the right-to-shelter entitlement, there are not always enough available beds in the right places to meet the demand on any given night. As a result, some families who are seeking shelter can’t access it right away and the waiting lists are growing. Even though new arrivals do not jump to the head of the line for emergency housing, they are granted equal status, so guaranteeing shelter to migrants inevitably means some local residents will not be able to access shelter as the system runs out of space.

In addition, expanding emergency shelter to meet the increased demand is resulting in the placement of homeless families in municipalities with little notice, which puts severe strain on the ability of cities and towns to keep their budgets in balance and provide essential services.  At the same time, the state is unable to equally distribute homeless families, so some communities are much harder hit than others – often in places that are already overburdened or can least afford it.

Federal rules and procedures governing legal entry for asylum seekers have been stretched to the point where migrants may enter the country, at least conditionally, for reasons having little or nothing to do with persecution or displacement due to war or natural disaster. And given the growing backlog of pending immigration cases, the vast majority of migrants who have been allowed temporary entry will likely stay here for at least several years. 

Without policy changes or additional resources at the federal level, the pressure on states like Massachusetts to provide more emergency services is likely to continue indefinitely. Until the federal government provides sufficient resources to meet the rapidly expanding need or takes other steps to restrain the growth in migration across the southern border, the burden falls on states to increase spending on their own, but there need to be reasonable limits – something the open-ended right-to-shelter entitlement precludes. 

EVIDENCE-BASED CASE OPPOSED:

When the right-to-shelter law was enacted four decades ago, there were only two state-supported homeless shelters in the entire state. Thanks to that law and increased funding, dozens more facilities were opened and over the years tens of thousands of families have been given temporary housing, keeping many of them off the streets. 

There is no doubt that Massachusetts and the country in general is suffering from a homelessness crisis, exacerbated by an increase in immigration. But taken in context, the number of people in Massachusetts without a place to live has been reasonably stable over time and has even declined in recent years. 

In January 2022, there were about 15,500 homeless people in Massachusetts, based on an annual “point in time” survey, about 2,000 fewer than were accounted for in 2012, and over 25 percent below the most recent peak in 2014. Massachusetts’s per-capita homeless population in 2022 was actually lower than it had been since at least 2007. The right-to-shelter law was in place throughout this period.

About 93 percent of Massachusetts’s homeless population had access to emergency shelter last year, compared to about 60 percent nationwide, and almost no homeless families were unsheltered.

Current numbers of unhoused individuals and families are higher now but given the success of the right-to-shelter law over the years, the appropriate response should be to further increase the capacity of our emergency shelter system, at least on a temporary basis, rather than permanently restrict eligibility.

Providing homeless families with a place to live is not just a matter of compassion. Sufficient emergency shelter helps ensure that these families are not living on the streets, which would create real economic, health, and social problems for affected communities.

Although more will have to be done, the state is allocating millions of dollars to mitigate the unanticipated costs to municipalities, which the administration plans to fund at least in part through existing reserves from prior year budget surpluses.

The solution is not to deny emergency shelter but to seek additional federal assistance and to more rapidly integrate new arrivals into the Massachusetts economy through an accelerated process for getting work permits.

The underlying long-term problem is the lack of affordable housing generally, including sufficient units for truly low-income families, as well as insufficient services and resources for individuals (including parents) suffering with mental illness and addiction. The migrant surge is making things worse in the moment, but it is not the primary cause of homelessness.

Importantly, Massachusetts’s right-to-shelter law is not really an open-ended entitlement, since it covers only families and pregnant women who are legally present (i.e., not undocumented) and facing substantial health or safety risk – not individuals or families who have a viable housing alternative. In addition, its implementation is “subject to appropriation” by the state Legislature.  In other words, the right-to-shelter law is designed to make the funding of emergency shelters and services a priority of state government, not unlike formula funding programs for schools. But it’s not a blank check. 

Homelessness is a human tragedy, so we have a collective obligation to provide at least a bare minimum of assistance, including emergency shelter — even without the right-to-shelter law. Watering down the law or placing further restrictive limits on who qualifies will only serve to weaken the state’s ability to address the long-term and ongoing humanitarian crisis of homelessness.

POTENTIAL FOR COMMON GROUND OR HIGHER GROUND:

The recent increase in homelessness tied to the surge in immigration has clearly overwhelmed the existing emergency shelter system, thereby putting unanticipated pressure on the Commonwealth’s right-to-shelter policy. While there may be reasons to re-evaluate the law in light of 40 years of experience and changing circumstances, the immediate challenge is to address the capacity crunch, and in that context both sides of the argument agree that the federal government is failing to fulfill its responsibilities and needs to do much more. 

In the meantime, even though there are no simple solutions, there may be viable approaches to both finding more space and reducing shelter utilization in the near term. 

The Commonwealth has under its control some properties that could potentially be used temporarily to accommodate a large number homeless migrant families and provide a more efficient staging area for state-provided or contracted resettlement services, including childcare, skills training, and job placement – even though these locations may be suboptimal, especially regarding access to locally based services, ethnically familiar communities, and potential employment opportunities.

At the same time, the state might consider placing a higher priority on policies and resources to keep families out of the shelters or shorten their stays by finding more suitable and sustainable options, including:

  • increased emergency supports to prevent evictions (such as the Residential Assistance for Families in Transition, or RAFT, program);
  • subsidies for households willing and able to take in otherwise homeless families and continued access to services for families that are doubling up with friends or family;
  • faster turnaround times for filling vacancies in public housing; and
  • more proactive and targeted case management.

Jim Peyser served most recently as Massachusetts secretary of education under Gov. Charlie Baker.

Data:

United States

  • Number of homeless people (2023):  653,104 based on “point in time” surveys
  • Percentage of homeless people who are part of families (2023): 28 percent
  • Percentage of unsheltered homeless people (2023):  39.3 percent
  • Number of annual “encounters” at the US-Mexican border (2023):  2.476 million, up 43 percent over 2021
  • Backlog of immigration cases: 3.364 million, up from 819,000 in 2018

Massachusetts

  •  Number of homeless people (2023): 19,141 based on January “point in time” survey
  • Percentage of homeless people who are part of families (2023): 67 percent (highest in the US)
  • Percentage of unsheltered homeless people (2023):  7.1 percent (4th lowest in the US)
  • Average annual household cost for a family in emergency shelter (Q2 2023): $65,423
  • Average length of stay in emergency shelter (based on families exiting in Q2 2023): 482 days
  • Backlog of immigration cases: 151,219 (7th highest in the US), up from 27,579 in 2018

Sources & Resources:

Massachusetts Emergency Assistance Placement Data (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/emergency-assistance-ea-family-shelter-resources-and-data#emergency-assistance-placement-data-)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Annual Homelessness Assessment (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar/2023-ahar-part-1-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-in-the-us.html)

State of Homelessness Annual Report, National Alliance to End Homelessness (https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/)

Southwest Land Border Encounters, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters)

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University (https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/)