A common concern voiced in community discussions about homelessness is that creating services for people experiencing homelessness will attract more unhoused people to the area. This "magnet" or "build it and they will come" theory often becomes a significant barrier to establishing shelters, housing programs, and support services. But what does the evidence actually show about this widely-held belief?
The Magnet Myth: What It Claims
The magnet theory suggests that:
- People experiencing homelessness will relocate to communities with more generous services
- Creating new services will lead to an influx of homeless individuals from other areas
- Cities with better services will bear a disproportionate burden of addressing homelessness
- Reducing services will encourage homeless individuals to leave the area
This theory often leads to policy decisions that limit or restrict services based on the fear of attracting more homeless individuals.
What the Research Actually Shows
Multiple studies have examined whether homeless services act as magnets, and the evidence consistently contradicts this theory:
People Rarely Move for Services
Research on migration patterns among people experiencing homelessness shows:
- The vast majority (75-85%) of people experiencing homelessness in a given community became homeless while living in that same community
- Most people who do relocate while homeless move for the same reasons as housed people: employment opportunities, family connections, or lower cost of living
- Access to homeless services ranks low among reasons for relocation in surveys of people experiencing homelessness
Research Highlight
A comprehensive study of homelessness in San Francisco found that 70% of respondents were living in San Francisco when they lost their housing, and 55% had lived in the city for 10 or more years before becoming homeless. Only 8% had come to the city after becoming homeless elsewhere.
Practical Barriers to Relocation
The magnet theory overlooks significant practical barriers that make relocation difficult for people experiencing homelessness:
- Transportation costs: Moving to a new city requires resources that many homeless individuals lack
- Loss of social networks: Relocating means leaving behind known support systems, familiar areas, and community connections
- Local knowledge: Navigating services in an unfamiliar city is challenging
- Residency requirements: Many programs require proof of local residency or prioritize long-term residents
Service Quality vs. Homelessness Rates
If the magnet theory were accurate, we would expect to see higher rates of homelessness in cities with better services. However:
- The strongest predictor of homelessness rates is housing affordability, not service availability
- Cities with similar service levels but different housing markets have vastly different homelessness rates
- Some cities with robust service systems (like Boston) have lower per-capita homelessness than cities with fewer services but higher housing costs
Case Studies: What Happens When Services Expand?
Examining real-world examples provides further evidence against the magnet theory:
Houston's Homelessness Reduction
Between 2011 and 2020, Houston:
- Significantly expanded housing and services for people experiencing homelessness
- Reduced homelessness by over 50%
- Did not see an influx of homeless individuals from other regions
Finland's Housing First Approach
Finland implemented a nationwide Housing First policy and:
- Is the only European country where homelessness has consistently decreased
- Has not experienced migration of homeless individuals from neighboring countries with fewer services
- Has demonstrated that comprehensive services reduce rather than increase homelessness
The Opposite Effect: Service Reductions
Communities that have reduced services based on the magnet theory have often seen negative outcomes:
- Increased visibility of homelessness as people lose access to shelters and day centers
- Higher public costs for emergency services, hospitalization, and law enforcement
- No significant reduction in the overall homeless population
- Worsening conditions for those experiencing homelessness, making eventual housing placement more difficult
The Displacement Effect
When services are reduced or anti-homeless ordinances are enacted, people experiencing homelessness typically don't leave the community entirely—they just move to different neighborhoods within the same region, often creating new concentrations of visible homelessness in areas with fewer resources to address the issue.
Why the Myth Persists
Despite contradictory evidence, the magnet myth remains persistent for several reasons:
Visibility Bias
Areas with services often have more visible concentrations of homelessness, not because they attract people from elsewhere, but because:
- Services provide gathering places where homeless individuals become more visible
- People who were previously hidden (in cars, couch surfing, or remote areas) may become more visible when accessing services
- Better outreach and engagement brings previously uncounted people into the system
Confirmation Bias
When people with out-of-state IDs or accents are encountered at homeless services, this can reinforce the magnet theory, even though:
- These individuals often represent a small minority of service users
- Many moved to the area while housed and later became homeless
- The same mobility exists in the housed population but goes unnoticed
Desire for Simple Solutions
The magnet theory offers a seemingly simple solution (reduce services) to a complex problem, which can be appealing even when evidence suggests this approach is ineffective.
The Real Relationship Between Services and Homelessness
Rather than attracting homelessness, well-designed services actually reduce it by:
Prevention
- Helping people maintain housing through rental assistance and eviction prevention
- Addressing underlying issues before they lead to housing loss
- Providing early intervention when housing stability is threatened
Rapid Resolution
- Quickly returning people to housing through rapid re-housing programs
- Reducing the duration of homelessness episodes
- Preventing the deterioration of health and well-being that occurs with prolonged homelessness
Long-term Solutions
- Creating pathways to permanent housing
- Addressing underlying issues that contribute to housing instability
- Building self-sufficiency and community integration
A More Effective Approach
Instead of limiting services based on unfounded fears, communities can address concerns about service concentration through:
Regional Coordination
- Developing coordinated regional approaches to homelessness
- Ensuring all communities contribute to solutions
- Sharing resources and responsibilities across jurisdictions
Balanced Distribution
- Distributing services appropriately throughout communities rather than concentrating them in a single area
- Integrating smaller-scale services into diverse neighborhoods
- Ensuring geographic accessibility while avoiding over-concentration
Housing-Focused Approaches
- Emphasizing permanent housing solutions rather than temporary services alone
- Implementing Housing First approaches that have proven effective
- Addressing the underlying housing affordability crisis
Conclusion
The evidence consistently shows that providing services does not significantly attract homeless individuals from other areas. Most people experience homelessness in the same communities where they lived when housed, and the primary driver of homelessness rates is housing affordability, not service availability.
Communities that have expanded services while focusing on permanent housing solutions have successfully reduced homelessness. Conversely, those that have restricted services based on the magnet theory have often seen worsening conditions without reducing the overall homeless population.
By moving beyond this persistent myth, communities can implement more effective, evidence-based approaches that actually reduce homelessness rather than simply trying to relocate it.
Key Takeaway
The fear that homeless services act as magnets is not supported by evidence. Most people experience homelessness in the communities where they already lived, and comprehensive services actually reduce rather than increase homelessness when they focus on housing-based solutions and addressing root causes.
References & Further Reading
- Burt, M. R. "Homeless in America: What the Data Tell Us." Urban Institute, 2001. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/homeless-america
- Applied Survey Research. "San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey Comprehensive Report." City and County of San Francisco, 2022. https://hsh.sfgov.org/about/research-and-reports/pit/
- Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. "Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Results." LAHSA, 2023. https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/
- The Coalition for the Homeless & Houston Housing Authority. "Houston's Homelessness Response: A Case Study in Community-Wide Impact." The Way Home, 2022. https://www.homelesshouston.org/
- Y-Foundation. "A Home of Your Own: Housing First and Ending Homelessness in Finland." Y-Foundation, 2017. https://ysaatio.fi/en/housing-first-finland
- Glynn, C. & Fox, E. B. "Dynamics of Homelessness in Urban America." The Annals of Applied Statistics, 13(1), 2019. https://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOAS1200
- National Alliance to End Homelessness. "Fact Sheet: Housing First." NAEH, 2022. https://endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-first/
- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "The 2023 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress." HUD, 2023. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2023-AHAR-Part-1.pdf