Housing and Public Safety
November 1, 2007
The Justice Policy Institute
is a Washington, D.C.based think tank dedicated
to ending society’s
reliance on incarceration
and promoting effective
and just solutions to social
problems.
Board of Directors
Tara Andrews
At-Large
David C. Fathi
Board Chair
Katharine Huffman
At-Large
Peter Leone, Ph.D.
Board Treasurer
Mark I. Soler
Board Secretary
Research Staff
Amanda Petteruti
Research & Publications
Associate
Nastassia Walsh
Research Assistant

Introduction

The United States leads the world in the number of people incarcerated in federal
and state correctional facilities. There are currently 1.4 million people in
America’s prisons and more than 700,000 people in America’s jails.1 According
to survey research on the correctional population, approximately 26 percent of
people in jail reported that they were homeless in the year prior to their
incarceration, and 19.5 percent of state prisoners reported being homeless.2 The
United States continues to have the highest incarceration rate in the world and,
with an estimated 3 million people living without a home every year,3 continues
to struggle with the policy challenges of chronic homelessness, the lack of
affordable housing, and the exclusion of certain people from federal housing
subsidies.
This research brief will summarize recent findings on what is known about access
to quality or substandard housing as it relates to public safety and the use of
incarceration. Along with conducting a brief literature review, the Justice Policy
Institute (JPI) has compared data on state housing expenditures with crime rates
and incarceration rates. While there is no single solution that will entirely reduce
the probability that a person will be involved in criminal activity, and the
literature is not conclusive on any one factor that would solve every community’s
various challenges, the research suggests that increased investments in housing
can have a positive public safety benefit. JPI’s findings include:
•

Some studies found that substandard housing—particularly where
exposure to lead hazards is more likely to occur—is associated with
higher rates of violent crime. Two recent independent studies have shown
that exposure to lead, associated with older, deteriorated, and lower-quality
housing, can result in increased delinquency, violence, and crime.

•

For populations who are most at risk for criminal justice involvement,
supportive or affordable housing has been shown to be a cost-effective
public investment, lowering corrections and jail expenditures and freeing
up funds for other pubic safety investments. Additionally, providing
affordable or supportive housing to people leaving correctional facilities is an
effective means of reducing the chance of future incarceration.

Jason Ziedenberg
Executive Director
Communications Staff
Laura Jones
Communications Director
LaWanda Johnson
Deputy Communications
Director
1003 K Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-558-7974
Fax: 202-558-7978
www.justicepolicy.org

1

Sabol, William J., Todd D. Minton, and Paige M. Harrison. 2007. Prison and jail inmates at
midyear 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2
James, Doris J., and Lauren E. Glaze. 2006. Mental health problems of prison and jail
inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3
Human Rights Watch. 2004. No second chance. New York: Human Rights Watch.
1

Housing and Public Safety

•

States that spent more on housing experienced lower incarceration rates than states
that spent less. Of the ten states that spent a larger proportion of their total expenditures
on housing, all ten had incarceration rates lower than the national average. Of the ten
states that spent a smaller proportion of their total expenditures on housing, five had
incarceration rates above the national average and two had incarceration rates just below
the national average.

What is meant by “supportive” and “affordable” housing?
Affordable housing, and its subset of supportive housing, refers to
permanent housing that is affordable to persons making 80 percent of the
median income in the area. Rents charged are typically less than 30 to 40
percent of the household income. Affordability is generally accomplished
through federal, state, and local governmentally subsidized programs that
provide assistance in capital and/or operating resources. Capital and
operating assistance can occur in many forms, such as money invested in
exchange for tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, mortgage
interest deductions, direct payments to supplement rent payments, and real
property donations or property sale or lease at less than market value of land
to be used for the construction of affordable housing.
Supportive housing is housing that provides on-site services to individuals
in need of support to improve or maintain their health, independent living
skills, income, employment, socialization skills, quality of life, and, most
important, maintain their housing. People who qualify for this type of
housing may include the homeless, people with mental illness, the elderly,
those with substance abuse problems, and those being released from
incarceration. Best practices indicate that the housing and the support
services work cooperatively but are independent of each other. Services are
provided as an adjunct to housing, and the use of services is usually not a
requirement of the housing. Supportive housing is typically limited to people
with disabilities or special needs and who have incomes at or below 30
percent of the median income in the area.

2

Housing and Public Safety

1. Low-quality housing, and the risk factors associated with low-quality housing, may
affect public safety.
.

Housing conditions have a significant impact on health, social circumstances, and life outcomes.
Housing that is overcrowded, dilapidated, rodent- or insect-infested, or without appropriate utilities is
of particular concern. Such low-quality housing has been associated with negative public safety
outcomes. A 2007 article published by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin examined
current empirical literature on the effects of housing quality. The authors found strong evidence of an
association between low-quality housing and a number of social consequences, including decreased
educational performance and negatively influenced health conditions, such as mental illness,
resulting from factors such as frequent residential mobility, exposure to lead paint, and poor indoor
air quality.4
Two recent independent studies have shown that exposure to lead, associated with older,
deteriorated, and lower-quality housing,5 can result in increased delinquency, violence, and crime. A
2000 study funded by the Office of Lead Hazard Control of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development examined long-term trends in population exposure to lead in paint and gasoline
in relation to trends in violent crime in the United States. The study found that long-term trends in
exposure to gasoline lead were clearly consistent with violent crime rates, and they were strongly
associated with murder rates.6 Furthermore, children who are exposed to higher levels of lead tend to
display more aggressive and delinquent behavior than those who are not exposed.
Lead levels in gasoline have tracked violent crime trends.7

Source: Nevin, Rick. 2000. How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime,
and unwed pregnancy. Environmental Research 83(1).
4

Mueller, Elizabeth J., and J. Rosie Tighe. 2007. Making the case for affordable housing: Connecting housing with health
and education outcomes. Journal of Planning Literature 21(4).
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. Lead Awareness Program. www.epa.gov/lead/, accessed August 22,
2007.
6
Nevin, Rick. 2000. How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime, and unwed pregnancy.
Environmental Research 83(1).
7
Nevin, Rick. 2000. The graph is a visual representation of the research cited in the article, a comprehensive compilation
of data from a wide variety of sources including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
3

Housing and Public Safety

A 2004 study published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior examined the association
between air-lead levels and crime rates across 2,772 U.S. counties. Even after adjusting for
general levels of air pollution and several structural covariates of crime, results from the study
suggest a direct effect of air-lead levels on property and violent crime rates.8
Low-income families are disproportionately concentrated in central cities, and lower-income
households are more likely to have paint in poor condition, creating paint chip and lead dust
hazards.9 In 2002 the National Institutes of Health found that 35 percent of low-income housing
(housing occupied by families with an annual income of less than $30,000) had lead-based paint
hazards, compared with 19 percent of housing that is not considered low-income.10

8

Lynch, Michael L., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2004. The relationship between lead and crime. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 45(2).
9
Nevin, Rick. 2000.
10
Jacobs, D. D., R. P. Clickner, J. Y. Zhou, S. M. Viet, D. A. Marker, J. W. Rogers, D. C. Zeldin, P. Broene, and W.
Friedman. 2002. The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in U.S. housing. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(10):
A599-A606.
4

Housing and Public Safety

2)

Affordable and supportive housing can provide public safety benefits to
communities.

“Opposition to affordable housing often rests on the assumption that affordable housing
brings no net benefits to the community, and that it threatens property values in the
neighborhood concerned.” Elizabeth J. Mueller and J. Rosie Tighe, University of Texas,
Austin11
Neighborhood residents sometimes raise concerns that a new supportive housing project might
aggravate the community’s public safety challenge. In 1997 the National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty polled 89 supportive housing programs and found that 41 percent had
experienced “not in my backyard” opposition from prospective neighbors and local governments
prior to beginning their operations.12 Sixty-one percent of these opponents listed a potential
increase in crime as their major concern with having supportive housing in their community.
However, studies have shown not only that the addition of supportive housing to a community
does not increase crime, but also that investments in supported housing have been associated
with improved neighborhood quality and property values.13
Research published in the Journal of Urban Affairs in 2002 examined 14 Denver neighborhoods
in which supportive housing facilities opened between 1992 and 1995 to determine the impact of
supportive housing on neighborhood crime rates. The authors concluded that none of the
categories of reported crime (total, violent, property, disorderly conduct, or criminal mischief
offenses) experienced statistically significant increases near a supportive housing facility after it
was developed and began operating.14
Supportive housing, when it is provided to people leaving prison, can help promote public safety
and other positive social outcomes. People leaving prison are especially vulnerable to
homelessness because they often are banned from federal housing, face challenges reconnecting
with family and friends, and lack the funds to afford available housing. A California study
reported that 50 percent of Los Angeles and San Francisco parolees were homeless in 1997.15 As
the number of people re-entering communities from prison has grown steadily with the
incarceration rate, so too has the number of people who are at risk of homelessness.

11

Mueller, Elizabeth J., and J. Rosie Tighe. 2007.
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. 1997. Access delayed, access denied. Washington, DC.
Online at www.nlchp.org
13
Arthur Andersen LLP, University of Pennsylvania Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research, K. E.
Sherwood, and TWR Consulting. 2000. The Connecticut Supportive Housing Demonstration program evaluation
report. New Haven: Corporation for Supportive Housing.
14
Galster, George, Kathryn Pettit, Anna Santiago, and Peter Tatian. 2002. The impact of supportive housing on
neighborhood crime rates. Journal of Urban Affairs 24(3): 289-315.
15
California Department of Corrections. 1997. Prevention parolee failure program: An evaluation. Sacramento:
California Department of Corrections.
5
12

Housing and Public Safety

A number of studies have found public safety benefits to providing housing to people leaving
prison.

16

•

A 1998 qualitative study conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice found that people
leaving a correctional facility in New York City for parole who entered shelters for the
homeless were seven times more likely to abscond during their first month after release
than those who had some form of housing.16

•

A study funded by the Fannie Mae Foundation revealed a 20 percent recidivism rate for
people leaving Illinois correctional facilities for two specific long-term housing programs
compared to a 50 percent recidivism rate for those who did not participate in the
programs.17

Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in
New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
17
Black, Kendall, and Richard Cho. 2004. New beginnings: The need for supportive housing for previously
incarcerated people. New York: Corporation for Supportive Housing and Common Ground Community.
6

Housing and Public Safety

3) Supportive housing can reduce correctional spending.

Although research focused on several cities has shown that increased spending on supportive
housing reduces correctional spending, jurisdictions continue to spend more on corrections than
on housing. In 2005 state and local governments spent approximately one-third more on
corrections than on housing and community development.18

Expenditures of state and local
governments (millions)

State and local governments spent almost $20 billion
more on corrections than on housing and community
development in 2005.
$70,000
$60,000

$59,253

$50,000

$39,995

$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-

Corrections

Housing and Community
Development

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. State and Local Government Finances by Level
of Government and by State: 2004-05. www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html

A 2007 report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness reported on the cost-effectiveness
of supportive housing compared to other services, including the criminal justice system.19 The
analysis included several cities.
•

18

Data from 4,679 New York City placement records of homeless individuals into
supportive housing between 1989 and 1997 showed that the costs of supportive housing
can reach up to $17,277 per person per year.20 By securing just one supportive housing
unit, the city saved $12,146 per year in public costs, including those costs associated with
health and mental health care, shelter, prisons, jails, and other criminal justice agencies.
Prior to placement in housing, homeless people with severe mental illness used an
average of $40,451 per person per year in social and criminal justice services. Placement
in housing through this program was associated with marked reductions in shelter use,
hospitalizations, length of stay per hospitalization, and time incarcerated.

U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. Undated. State and local government finances by level of
government and by state: 2004-05. www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html, accessed July 26, 2007.
19
National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2007. Supportive housing is cost-effective. Online at
www.endhomelessness.org
20
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Trevor Hadley. 2002. The impact of supportive housing for homeless
people with severe mental illness on the utilization of the public health, corrections, and emergency shelter systems:
The New York-New York Initiative. Housing Policy Debate 13(1).
7

Housing and Public Safety

Supportive housing saved New York City $9,358 per year in public
costs associated with shelter use, mental health care and incarceration.
$14,000

$12,520

$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000

$6,538

$4,658

$4,000

$1,839

$2,000

$1,013

$456

$0
Homeless Shelters

State Mental Hospitals

Costs per Homeless Individual

Prisons and Jails

Costs with Supportive Housing

Source: Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Trevor Hadley. 2002. The impact of supportive
housing for homeless people with severe mental illness on the utilization of the public health,
corrections, and emergency shelter systems: The New York-New York Initiative. Housing Policy
Debate 13(1).

•

A Denver program developed in 2003 to provide supportive housing for the chronically
homeless realized substantial savings for the city. After placement of chronically
homeless people in supportive housing, the number of people held at county jails
decreased 60 percent, with a 76.2 percent reduction of nights spent in county jails. The
associated costs of incarceration for the people served by this program declined from
$34,160 to $8,120 a year, a reduction of $26,040 or 76 percent.21

Annual costs of services per person

Supportive housing saves Denver thousands of dollars per person
on public services annually.
$8,000
$6,844

$7,000
$6,000

Pre-entry
Post-entry

$5,187

$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000

$899

$821
$0

$214

$0

Detox

Shelter

Incarceration

Source: Perlman, Jennifer, and John Parvensky. 2006. Denver Housing First Collaborative: Cost benefit
analysis and program outcomes report. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, as cited in National
Alliance to End Homelessness. 2007. Supportive housing is cost-effective. Online at
www.naeh.org/content/article/detail/1200
21

Perlman, Jennifer, and John Parvensky. 2006. Denver Housing First Collaborative: Cost benefit analysis and program
outcomes report. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Online at www.shnny.org/documents/FinalDHFCCostStudy.pdf
8

Housing and Public Safety

A 2004 study of nine U.S. cities found that supportive housing is the most cost-effective way to
serve homeless individuals. In all nine cities—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Los
Angeles, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Seattle—estimates find the cost of supportive
housing to be considerably less than the cost of prison and/or jail.22
Prison costs almost three times as much as supportive housing
in Los Angeles.
$90

$84.74

Cost per day per person

$80
$70

$63.69

$60
$50
$40

$30.10

$30
$20
$10
$0

Prison

Jail

Supportive Housing

Source: The Lewin Group. 2004. Costs of serving homeless individuals in nine cities. Chart Book
Report. New York: Corporation for Supportive Housing.

Supportive housing is crucial for many people with mental illness who often have difficulty
maintaining a stable housing situation and are vulnerable to homelessness.23 Homelessness
increases the likelihood that people with mental illness will have contact with law enforcement.
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that providing supportive housing to people
with severe mental illness decreased the number of days people with severe mental illness spent
in prison or jail 74 and 40 percent, respectively.24

22

The Lewin Group. 2004. Costs of serving homeless individuals in nine cities. Chart book report. New York:
Corporation for Supportive Housing.
23
National Coalition for the Homeless. 2006. Factsheet: Mental health and homelessness. Online at
www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/Mental_Illness.pdf.
24
Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Trevor Hadley. 2002.
9

Housing and Public Safety

4) Increased spending on housing and community development is associated with
reduced crime and reduced incarceration rates.
JPI analyzed national and state-level spending on housing and community development and
corrections expenditures and compared these expenditures to violent crime rates and prison
incarceration rates from 2000 to 2005. We found that an increase in spending on housing is
associated with a decrease in violent crime at the national level and a decrease in incarceration
rates at the state level.
An increase in spending on housing and community development paired with a decrease in
spending on corrections is associated with both lower violent crime rates and lower prison
incarceration rates.25
Violent crime rates decreased when funding was shifted to housing
from corrections.

Housing expenditure as a
percent of total expenditure
Corrections expenditure as a
percent of total expenditure
Violent crime rate*

2000

2005

Percent
change
(2000-2005)

1.5%

1.7%

+10.74%

2.8%

2.5%

-10.62%

506.50

469.20

-7.36%

*Rates are the number of reported violent offenses (murder, rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault) per 100,000 people in the population.

On average, the ten states that allocate a larger portion of their budgets to housing and
community development (calculated and labeled as housing expenditure as a percent of direct
expenditures) have lower incarceration rates than the ten states that allocated a smaller
percentage.26 Of those states that spend a larger portion of their budgets on housing, none had an
incarceration rate higher than the national average. However, half of those states that allocate the
least to housing and community development had incarceration rates higher than the national
average, and two of those states had incarceration rates just below the national average: Arkansas
was 1.6 percent lower and Idaho was 6.5 percent lower than the national incarceration rate.

25

Violent crime data: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States, 2000-2005. Expenditure data: U.S.
Census Bureau, Governments Division. State and Local Government Finances by Level of Government and by
State: 2004-05. www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html. Corrections data: Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J.
Beck. 2006. Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
26
Expenditure data: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. State and Local Government Finances by Level of
Government and by State: 2004-05. www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html. Prison incarceration rate data:
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2006. Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
10

Housing and Public Safety

On average, states that spend a higher percentage of their budget on housing have lower
incarceration rates than states that spend less.
Ten states that allocate a larger portion of their
budget to housing

Ten states that allocate a smaller portion of their
budgets to housing

Housing as a
percent of
direct
expenditures

Incarceration
rate
(per 100,000)

2005

Housing as a
percent of
direct
expenditures

United States

1.7%

488.3

United States

1.7%

488.3

Massachusetts
New
Hampshire
Vermont

2.5%

138.5

Mississippi

1.1%

684.8

2.5%

196.0

1.1%

701.3

2.4%

238.8

1.1%

539.3

California

2.4%

456.0

Texas
South
Carolina
Wisconsin

1.0%

395.7

Maryland

2.3%

405.3

Arizona

1.0%

501.1

Alaska

2.3%

373.8

Arkansas

1.0%

480.2

Rhode Island

2.2%

179.6

Oklahoma

0.9%

655.6

Connecticut

2.1%

376.5

Iowa

0.7%

289.3

Maine

2.1%

153.0

Idaho

0.5%

456.6

Washington

2.0%

263.0

Wyoming

0.3%

398.2

Average

2.3%

278.0

0.9%

510.2

2005

Average

Incarceration
rate
(per 100,000)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. State and Local Government Finances by Level of
Government and by State: 2004-05. Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2006. Prison and jail inmates at midyear
2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

11

Housing and Public Safety

Recommendations
Positive investments in communities and community development through housing (such as
supportive housing and affordable housing) can yield benefits in public safety, cost savings, and
long-term community enrichment. Stable housing is the foundation for education, employment,
and access to other social programs and services. Compared with people who face barriers in
their housing situations, people in stable living environments are better able to make investments
in themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods.
In 2002 nearly 2,000 people returned from prison to the District of Columbia.27 During the same
time period, the city experienced a dramatic loss of affordable housing.28 Without affordable
housing, people returning from prison are more likely to face challenges obtaining employment,
staying in treatment programs, and getting other services that would help them reestablish
themselves in the community. Though it may be possible for people returning from prison to
move to surrounding suburbs, the value of maintaining ties to family and community within the
city is crucial for people returning from prison to successfully reestablish themselves in society.

Number of affordable housing units

The District of Columbia lost 62 percent of its affordable
housing over four years.
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

43,800
31,800

30,000
26,000
16,600

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Source: Rodgers, Angie. 2005. New census data show DC’s affordable housing crisis is
worsening. Washington, DC: DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Online at www.dcfpi.org/9-1305hous.pdf.

27

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. Correctional populations in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Harrison, Paige M., and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2003. Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2002.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Harrison, Paige M., and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2004. Prison and jail
inmates at midyear 2003. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Lattimore, Pamela K. 2004. National
portrait of serious and violent offender reentry initiative. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Cited and analyzed in
Roman, Caterina Gouvis, Michael J. Kane, and Rukmini Giridharadas. 2006. The housing landscape for returning
prisoners in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
28
According to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, affordable housing in this context is housing that rents for $500 or
less per month or homes valued at $150,000 or less, but not necessarily subsidized by the government. Rodgers,
Angie. 2005. New census data show DC’s affordable housing crisis is worsening. Washington, DC: DC Fiscal
Policy Institute. Online at www.dcfpi.org/9-13-05hous.pdf.
12

Housing and Public Safety

Research limitations
Some studies produce data that associate crime with the presence of or proximity to subsidized
housing such as supportive housing or affordable housing. Other researchers conclude that
statistical association with crime results from factors specific to particular housing (such as an
allocation policy that concentrates crime-likely individuals in already-crime-prone spaces),
suggesting that implementation of carefully thought out policy on subsidized housing (regulating
factors such as design and allocation) has the potential to lower or remove statistical correlations
between governmentally subsidized housing and crime.29
Although investments in housing and other social factors have been shown to promote public
safety and healthy communities, there is no single solution that will reduce the chance that a
person will be involved in criminal activity. The research is not conclusive on any one factor that
would solve every community’s public safety challenges, as different communities have
differing needs and what works for one may not work for another. All of these social factors
should be considered in the context of individual communities in order to establish policies that
effectively ensure public safety.

Acknowledgements
This policy brief was researched and written by Amanda Petteruti, Aviva Tevah, Nastassia
Walsh, and Jason Ziedenberg. JPI staff includes Debra Glapion, LaWanda Johnson, and Laura
Jones. The authors would like to thank Darin Lounds of the Housing Consortium of the East Bay
and LaKesha Pope of the National Alliance to End Homelessness for their valuable input. This
report would not have been possible without generous support from the Open Society Institute–
New York, the Public Welfare Foundation, and individual donors to JPI.

29

For example, in 1999 researchers at the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research explored the
issue of crime and public housing in Sydney, Australia, concluding that statistics associating subsidized housing
with crime reflected the allocation of crime-prone individuals to subsidized housing; these researchers suggested
that adjusting allocation policy will influence the statistical relationship between subsidized housing and crime.
Weatherburn, Don, Bronwyn Lind, and Simon Ku. 1999. Hotbeds of crime? Crime and public housing in urban
Sydney. Crime and Delinquency 45(2).
13