Stephen Metraux is a professor of public policy at the University of Delaware. This Opinion is derived from the webinar, “Unsheltered Homelessness in Sussex County, DE: Profiling a Hidden Population.”
As Georgetown wrestles with an explosive homelessness crisis, outreach worker Dana Ellis has taken a quieter path: meeting people one by one, listening and building trust. As part of this, she has been collecting surveys — 241 in the past year — that offer the first real data on a problem too often defined by rumor and stereotype.
This is significant because, despite all the concern about homelessness in Georgetown, little data exists on the nature and scope of this issue. In such a situation, assumptions and stereotypes fill this void. Despite its limitations, Ellis’ survey takes a big, initial step toward providing actual answers to some of the most frequently asked questions.
Among the most asked questions is how many people in Georgetown are homeless on a given night. Ellis’ data allows us to conservatively estimate the answer to be “a lot.” More specifically, the survey suggests 100-200 people — about 1%-2% of the town’s population. That’s five to 10 times higher than rates in major cities like Philadelphia or New York.
That leads to another FAQ: How many people who are homeless are Georgetown residents? Based on the survey, roughly equal numbers are Georgetown residents and people from other Sussex County locations. Only a handful of people came from outside of Sussex County. Additionally, 25 survey respondents (10%) reported becoming homeless upon exiting nearby institutional settings — correctional or residential behavioral health facilities — highlighting failures in discharge planning.
Drilling down even further, this leads to questions about the extent that homeless people come to Georgetown to access services there. The survey addresses this with the question, “What led you to decide to live in the town where you are now?” In a couple of surveys, the word “services” or “resources” was the complete response. Seventeen percent of the respondents included one of these terms in their answers.
In contrast, results show that shelter availability in Georgetown falls well short of need for most of the year. More survey respondents reported living in Georgetown’s encampments than at Georgetown’s year-round shelter and transitional housing facilities. However, Georgetown’s sheltered population more than doubled on the winter nights when cold weather “Code Purple” shelters were open, an indication of how much unmet demand there is for shelter.
Substance use and mental illness are also staples in questions about the homeless population. And these are certainly prominent features. Seventy-six percent of the survey respondents acknowledged having had either “mental health conditions or concerns” and/or “a history of substance abuse.” Thirty-two percent reported having both. The large majority of both groups either receive treatment or say they want it.
It is a mistake, however, to reduce this surveyed homeless population to just being addicted and crazy. The notes that Ellis jotted down among the survey answers illustrate some other key dimensions.
Twenty-nine respondents (12%) were age 62 and over. Among the oldest was a 72-year-old veteran who, when asked about his living situation, said, “My tent is my shelter right now. I have everything I need for the time being in my tent; however, I do want permanent housing.”
Health conditions both contribute to becoming homeless and get exacerbated by life on the streets. In an extreme example, one woman, at age 62, lives in a vehicle after recently undergoing open-heart surgery. “When I got out of the hospital, I kind of let things go. I do suffer from depression, as well.”
Thirty-four (14%) reported some type of employment, including 16 working full time. Ellis surveyed one 35-year-old man who was “employed full time for two months at (a Georgetown restaurant) and staying in a tent in an encampment known as ‘Tent City.’” Imagine the logistical challenges involved with holding down this job.
Taken together, data from Ellis’ survey supports what many Georgetown residents have already intuited. For its size, Georgetown carries a high burden of homelessness, with almost all coming from either Georgetown or the surrounding county. This isn’t just a Georgetown problem but a regional problem.
The survey reveals that a significant minority of those surveyed came to Georgetown in search of services, though the extent of this is likely to be less than many of the critics of the town’s homeless response believe. For those who did come for that reason, the actual availability of services, shelter and housing likely has left them sorely disappointed.
In addition to the need for more services, the survey results also show the shortcomings of existing services. These are most apparent among those who find themselves homeless upon their exits from behavioral health and jail facilities, where the failure to adequately plan for housing leaves them more likely to return to these facilities.
Georgetown should not be left to handle this problem alone. Surrounding jurisdictions, where the high cost of housing drives away indigent populations, need to take more responsibility for this problem. Sussex County should acknowledge that this is a problem that extends beyond Georgetown. And the state, with its social, health care and housing resources, must actively partner with more local entities. And, at the very least, it needs to be held more accountable for the housing of those who exit its correctional facilities.
There is much concern and much emotion expressed about homelessness in Georgetown. Other small-town regional hubs in Sussex, such as Seaford and Milford, face similar challenges. Ellis’ survey reminds us that this is a poor, suffering and needy population; Ellis’ work reminds us that both data and compassion are necessary components to any lasting solution.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
