













































Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 47 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

Unhoused African Americans and LGBTQIA+ Youth: 
Disproportionately Overrepresented Groups in the Unhoused 
Population 

Jason Chen 
Department of Biological Sciences  

Department of Finance, Law, & Real Estate 
 California State University, Los Angeles 

 
Theodoric Manley, PhD 

Department of Sociology, Lecturer 
California State University, Los Angeles 

ABSTRACT 
Over 75,000 individuals in Los Angeles County are unhoused, 
representing a crucial issue that needs to be addressed. In addition 
to stemming from a complex array of historical and societal 
factors, the unhoused population is further burdened by racial and 
identity-based inequities, with African Americans and 
LGBTQIA+ youth representing two disproportionally 
overrepresented groups in the unhoused population. Thus, more 
work must be conducted to uncover the systemic injustices that 
perpetuate homelessness and advocate for more equitable 
solutions. This analysis explores the historical antecedents leading 
up to the current housing crisis before drawing from evidence-
based studies to frame a set of policy choices and 
recommendations to address the disproportionate number of 
homeless African American and LGBTQIA+ youth populations in 
Los Angeles. I discuss current approaches to resolving the 
homelessness problem before introducing and advocating for 
Housing First, an evidence-based approach that seeks to empower 
unhoused individuals by prioritizing housing from the beginning. 
Critically, I address specific challenges faced by unhoused African 
Americans and LGBTQIA+ youth, providing a framework for 
implementation and recommendations to address such disparities 
in housing more adequately. As with necessities like food, 
clothing, and fundamental rights to speech and freedom, housing 
is a human right. 
 
Los Angeles boasts one of the world’s most dynamic and 
productive economies, yet it is simultaneously called the nation’s 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 48 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

epicenter of homelessness. Where the sleek angles of sports cars 
are just as common as the mismatched tarps of homeless 
encampments, it is no wonder that Los Angeles is ranked seventh 
in income inequality out of the largest 150 metro regions 
(PolicyLink 2023). With over 45,000 homeless people in the City 
of Los Angeles and an additional 30,000 in the greater county, 
homelessness has become an increasingly critical issue in LA and 
beyond (LAHSA 2023). People experiencing homelessness–or 
alternate term, the unhoused–experience increased exposure to 
communicable diseases, violence, malnutrition, and harmful 
weather exposure, and they have, on average, a 12-year shorter 
life expectancy when compared to the general US population 
(NHCHC 2019). While 26.7% of the Los Angeles unhoused 
population are sheltered adults and youth, unsheltered youth make 
up 3.0% of the unhoused population, and unsheltered adults make 
up a staggering 70.3% of the unhoused population. Furthermore, 
characterization of significant portions within the unhoused 
population (LAHSA 2024) include: 29,823 chronically homeless; 
2,991 veterans; and 2,406 transition-aged youth–who are 
particularly vulnerable due to their ineligibility for youth services. 

According to USICH’s (n.d.) report using data trends to 
dismantle myths believed about homelessness, 40-60% of 
unhoused individuals have jobs–despite the common conception 
that unhoused people are unemployed–but struggle to find 
housing because it is unaffordable. Economic reasons like job loss 
contribute significantly, and many shelters are limited to people 
who are sober, straight, and have no disability or criminal record. 
Additionally, while unhoused people are commonly perceived as 
dangerous and violent, they are more likely to be victims of 
violent crime. Finally, while a common stereotype is that most 
unhoused people have substance use and/or mental health 
disorders, the majority don’t; instead, the large majority of people 
with substance abuse and mental health illnesses are not homeless. 

Despite making up only 5-8% of the overall US youth 
population, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, 
Asexual (or LGBTQIA+) youth make up 40% of the youth 
population experiencing homelessness (Robinson 2018). 
Additionally, homelessness is experienced disproportionately by 
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (or BIPOC), as more than 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 49 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

40% of the homeless population is composed of African 
Americans, though they comprise only 13% of the general 
population (NAEH 2023). In Los Angeles, African Americans 
make up 31.7% of the homeless population despite making up 
only 7.6% of the general LA county population (LAHSA 2023). 
LGBTQIA+ youth and African Americans face unique challenges 
due to their marginalized identities, and it is crucial to understand 
the underlying causes of their homelessness to uncover the 
systemic injustices that perpetuate homelessness and advocate for 
more equitable solutions. 

Given these stark disparities, this paper examines 
homelessness among two of the most disproportionately affected 
groups: African Americans of all ages and LGBTQIA+ youth. 
While homelessness affects individuals across various 
demographics, these groups face unique systemic challenges that 
warrant specific attention. African Americans experience 
homelessness at significantly higher rates than their proportion of 
the general population, primarily due to historical and structural 
factors such as discriminatory housing policies and economic 
disparities. Similarly, LGBTQIA+ youth make up an outsized 
portion of unhoused young people, often as a result of identity-
based discrimination and family rejection. Understanding these 
differences is essential to developing tailored policy solutions that 
address their specific vulnerabilities and break the cycle of 
homelessness. 
 
HISTORICAL CORRELATIONS - THE ORIGIN OF PUBLIC 
HOUSING AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 
It is important to acknowledge the historical antecedents of 
modern housing programs to understand the homeless issue. This 
necessitates a discussion of public housing, which the government 
initially constructed in the early 1900s to address the living 
conditions of America’s poorest families during World War I 
(Goetz 2013). These projects provided affordable and decent 
housing for the neediest. Still, they soon followed a recognizable 
pattern of racialization, mismanagement, and subsequent 
demolition following the increasingly dominant neoliberal 
perspective. The post-World War I period, which began in the 
1930s, saw improved economic conditions as liberal democratic 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 50 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

philosophy defined the character of American politics and 
government. Starting with President Roosevelt’s New Deal 
programs from 1933 to 1938, Keynesian economics was born, 
which supported ‘big government’ solutions and redistributive 
programs (Goetz 2013; Marr 2015). The federal government 
favored demand-side policies to bring the country back into 
stability, encouraging infrastructure development and jobs by 
building housing, instituting food programs, and enhancing social 
security. 

As economic conditions improved, the racial character of 
public housing changed from primarily white to Black. White 
public housing residents were presented with more opportunities 
in the private sector than their Black counterparts, resulting in an 
outflow of whites and an increase in Black occupancy (Goetz 
2013). At the same time, funding for public housing decreased as 
the shift to the neoliberal ideology occurred. Public housing 
quickly became marginalized and stigmatized, further cementing 
its demise. The civil rights movement, beginning in the late 1950s-
1960s, brought in new legislation like the Fair Housing Act, which 
President Johnson signed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 
(HUD n.d.a). However, a shift to more neoliberal views soon 
began. The neoliberal approach fosters financial deregulation and 
labor market flexibility at the expense of social welfare programs 
(Goetz 2013). This has contributed to rising levels of unstable 
employment, inequality, and poverty, now defining characteristics 
of major metropolitan areas in the United States. Importantly, 
housing for the nation’s most disadvantaged became a major crisis 
as a shift to the private market was prioritized.  

In the 1970s, the expansion of the public housing stock 
ended with the Nixon administration. With the passage of the 1974 
Housing and Community Development Act, the Section 8 housing 
program began to take effect. Rather than provide families with 
hard units–as in public housing–the government began to 
compensate them with housing vouchers for use in the local 
private housing market (Marr 2015). However, these vouchers 
were not effective at addressing the housing need, as prospective 
buyers with vouchers were highly likely to encounter 
discrimination and various barriers to obtaining housing (TBF 
2020). Displaced families from the demolition of public housing 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 51 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

were often limited to relocating to high-poverty and racially 
segregated neighborhoods (Marr 2015). 

According to Roschelle (2019), the decline of public 
housing and the rise of neoliberal policy were in line with the 
discriminatory perspectives on social welfare at the time. In the 
1980s and 1990s, Black and Latina mothers on social welfare were 
often vilified as ‘lazy’ and welfare-dependent. In 1996, President 
Clinton passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act to eliminate welfare dependency by enforcing 
a lifetime limit of 5 years on welfare receipt. Such policies further 
entrenched racism and discrimination in American social 
assistance, a characteristic that still affects housing programs 
today. 

Marr (2015) notes the relationship between structural 
(causal) and cultural (adaptative) factors indicates the link 
between current housing programs and the history of public 
housing decline. Multiple social levels shape the process of 
exiting homelessness. Unhoused individuals attempt multifaceted 
efforts, but the housing constraints system and low-wage jobs 
currently characterize our economy and tie them to an endless 
cycle. The various structural factors that affect the unhoused 
population include the labor market, housing market, and welfare 
system. Instead of defining homelessness as embracing an identity 
or culture, ethnographic researchers should focus on how 
resources (economic, social, emotional, etc.) can be obtained. 
Thus, local and national governments should promote 
employment at a living wage, affordable housing, and adequate 
welfare support. 

 
CURRENT APPROACHES TO RESOLVING THE HOMELESS 
PROBLEM 
The dominant approach to managing homelessness in the United 
States is the linear continuum of care, emphasizing a step-by-step 
staircase model. The linear approach is structured so that low 
demand/low service provisions are available at the first level, and 
transitional housing and permanent housing are offered only after 
consistent demonstration of housing readiness or ‘worthiness’ 
(Padgett, Henwood, and Tsemberis 2016). 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 52 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

 
Figure 1: The treatment first approach is based on the linear continuum of care 

and step-by-step staircase model (Padgett et al. 2016). 

This reinforces the conception that homeless people with serious 
mental illness and co-occurring substance abuse are the authors of 
their destinies. This approach reinforces a means-tested policy by 
having the individual demonstrate they deserve access to housing. 
Because of how this approach is structured, individuals do not 
always proceed through it orderly, and far too many ‘fall off the 
staircase.’ Despite its so-called moral attractiveness, the linear 
approach–otherwise known as treatment first–is often a “cruel and 
costly circle of futility” (Padgett et al. 2016). Navigating this 
social services system can be incredibly difficult, as participation 
in the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (or 
CalWORKs; a public assistance program for families in 
California) requires complex requirements. In addition to 
maintaining adherence to income limits and reporting changes in 
household composition and criminal justice status, parents are 
tasked with providing proof of immunization requirements and 
other legal documentation. For many homeless families, these 
documents can be easily lost or stolen, resulting in an inability to 
qualify for assistance. The number of program participation 
requirements can be so unreasonable that even caseworkers are 
confused by the system (Roschelle 2019). These are directly tied 
to a capitalist society’s neoliberal approach to basic human needs. 
Many treatment-first social services are also faith-based, 
encouraging many families to feign religious enthusiasm. For 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 53 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

example, one transitional housing facility required residents to 
attend lectures on topics like “The Myth of Evolution” or “How 
Jesus Can Lead You out of Temptation and Homelessness.” As one 
woman frustratingly put it, “‘I’m not homeless because of 
temptation; I’m homeless because I’m poor. But I don’t have a 
choice; I have to pretend to believe their bullshit’” (Roschelle 
2019). These barriers illustrate how traditional approaches fail to 
address the root cause of homelessness, particularly for 
historically marginalized groups. Instead of treating housing as a 
privilege contingent on compliance with social service 
requirements, we must shift toward recognizing it as an 
unconditional right. A theoretical foundation for this shift can be 
found in philosopher John Rawls’s theory of justice, which argues 
for fairness and equity in social structures. 
 
THE ETHICAL CASE FOR HOUSING AS A RIGHT 
Rawlsian theory offers a comprehensive framework for 
understanding justice and fairness in society. In the context of 
homelessness and the recognition of housing as a fundamental 
right, several key concepts within Rawlsian theory become 
particularly relevant and provide a deeper understanding of its 
implications. First, Rawls argues that individuals have diverse 
conceptions of what constitutes a good life, shaped by their values, 
beliefs, and interests. Acknowledging housing as a right means 
respecting individuals’ agency and autonomy in pursuing their 
vision of a good life, which may involve stability, security, and a 
sense of belonging that housing can provide (Talisse 2001). Rawls 
also encourages using the original position, a hypothetical 
scenario in which individuals come together to establish principles 
of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. In this exercise, 
individuals lack knowledge–are veiled in ignorance–about their 
specific attributes, such as wealth, talents, or social status. Applied 
to homelessness, the original position calls for policies that 
prioritize housing as a right, as individuals in the original position 
would not know whether they might experience homelessness. 
Therefore, they would strive to create a just society where 
everyone can access secure housing, ensuring fairness and 
impartiality (Talisse 2001). This philosophy is justly apt, 
especially in consideration of disproportionately marginalized 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 54 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

groups in homelessness, like African Americans and LGBTQIA+ 
youth. Housing should be provided unconditionally as a 
prerequisite for stability and well-being rather than a reward 
earned. 

 
HOUSING FIRST - EMPOWERING THE HOMELESS BY 
INCLUDING THEM IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 
It is a fundamental human right to have basic food, clothing, and 
healthcare needs met. While many of these are handled with direct 
services, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or 
SNAP; a modern version of the Food Stamp Program), the 
fundamental right to shelter needs to be more adequately 
addressed in the U.S. Consistent with the neoliberal model, many 
welfare programs in the U.S. are means-tested and restricted to 
needs-based assistance. This contrasts with the more rights-based 
assistance programs in Europe. Interestingly, it follows that 
definitions of homelessness in European countries are 
characteristic of more accommodating housing programs (Padgett 
et al. 2016).  

The Housing First evolved as a consumer choice program 
philosophy stemming from the patient and human rights 
movement of 1970. It incorporates community-based, mobile 
support services based on the Assertive Community Treatment 
model and also has a basis in the harm-reduction model 
originating from the HIV/AIDS epidemic (Padgett et al. 2016). 
Currently, the general model of Housing First approach is based 
on the not-for-profit Pathways to Housing model which 
emphasizes permanent scatter-site housing. This initially came 
from consumer advocates who argued that people with psychiatric 
disabilities should have the same ‘normalized’ housing as those 
with other disabilities. The main goal is to prevent 
institutionalization that undermines social integration and 
independent living (Padgett et al. 2016). The organizational aim 
of the Housing First approach is to employ staff with lived 
experience in homelessness who have training in psychiatric 
rehabilitation, trauma-informed care, and harm reduction. 
Additionally, a strong focus is on reducing power differentials and 
blurred boundaries between staff and program participants 
(Padgett et al. 2016). The Housing First approach offers standard 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 55 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

housing, tenancy rights, privacy, freedom separate from program 
demands, off-site rather than on-site services, and affordable rent 
contracts. By directly providing permanent housing, consumers 
can focus on utilizing their services. They experience ontological 
security, which arises from stability in one’s living environment. 
This leads to engagement, retention, and a closer experience of 
having a true ‘home’ (Padgett et al. 2016). These characteristics 
are all meant to provide residents with security and comfort that 
motivates them to keep their housing. 

 
Figure 2: The Housing First approach places individuals directly into 

permanent housing, from “streets to homes” (Padgett et al. 2016). 

Evidence-Based 
The Housing First model is widely recognized as an effective and 
cost-efficient approach to addressing unhoused populations. The 
earliest evaluations of the Housing First model began in the early 
2000s in New York City. A 2000 study demonstrated that after five 
years, 88% of Housing First participants remained housed, 
compared to 47% of participants in the control group (Padgett et 
al. 2016). Additionally, a 2004 study comparing retention rates of 
participants in the Housing First model and the Treatment First 
model demonstrated that Housing First participants spent almost 
no time experiencing homelessness after two years, which was 
considerably more successful than the Treatment First group, 
which, on average, spent about 25% of their time in homelessness 
(NAEH 2023). Another study from 2004 that utilized a random 
assignment experimental approach demonstrated that the Housing 
First model eliminated barriers to services and was more 
successful in reducing homelessness than programs that were 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 56 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

contingent on sobriety and treatment progress, resulting in 79% of 
Housing First participants stably housed by the end of six months, 
compared to 27% in the Treatment First group (NAEH 2023). 

More recently, a 2021 study found an 88% decrease in 
homelessness and a 41% increase in housing stability with the 
Housing First model. In 2015, Housing First demonstrably 
increased outpatient service utilization and outreach to and 
engagement with clients inadequately served by the public mental 
health system. Recent studies also indicate that Housing First may 
reduce the usage of alcohol, stimulants, and opiates (NAEH 
2023). 

Evidence also suggests that the Housing First model is 
cost-effective. In 2007, Project 50 was launched in Skid Row to 
assess the efficacy of the Housing First approach (Krisiloff and 
Boyce n.d.). Over ten days, 471 unhoused individuals were 
counted, and 350 were surveyed. The top 50 most vulnerable were 
selected based on a vulnerability index, with an average number 
of years homeless of 9.58. 76% and 90% of the participants were 
identified with mental health and substance abuse issues, 
respectively. Then, an engagement team was employed to 
establish and maintain rapport with the individuals engaging in 
services. Integrated health, mental health, and substance abuse 
services were provided in offices on-site, within the participant’s 
place of residence, or anywhere necessary, in accordance with the 
Housing First model. After four years, Project 50 boasted an 80% 
retention rate. Perhaps most impressively, the cost analysis 
revealed total cost offsets of $3.284 million (108% of the money 
spent by the program) returned to LA County, which corresponded 
with a surplus of $4,774 generated per occupied unit (Krisiloff and 
Boyce n.d.). 

 
CHALLENGES FACED BY UNHOUSED AFRICAN 
AMERICANS AND LGBTQIA+ YOUTH 
African Americans and LGBTQIA+ youth, as mentioned, 
represent two disproportionately represented groups experiencing 
homelessness despite making up a small portion of the overall 
population. From October 2021 to November 2022, the UCSF 
Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative (BHHI 2024) 
conducted the California Statewide Study of People Experiencing 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 57 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

Homelessness with significant focus on understanding the 
experience of Black unhoused individuals. In California, Black 
individuals make up 26% of the unhoused population despite 
making up only 7% of the state’s overall population. Incarceration 
was reported by 43% of unhoused Black Californians, compared 
to 31% of whites and 37% of other races. Interestingly, 51% of 
unhoused Black Californians are age 50 and older, indicating an 
insufficient social safety net and lack of lifetime wealth to retire. 
Black Californians also experienced meager incomes before 
homelessness, as leaseholders’ median monthly costs were $675, 
more than half of the median monthly household income. During 
homelessness, Black Californians reported inadequate access to 
mental health services, as only 35% of those who reported at least 
one mental health system in the prior month received either 
counseling or medication. Perhaps most strikingly, 51% of Black 
unhoused Californians reported that discrimination impeded their 
housing search, and 59% noted the length of waitlists for housing 
support, compared to 48% of white Californians and 49% of other 
races. 

LGBTQIA+ youth face similar yet unique challenges, as 
individuals who deviate from the norm are usually pathologized 
and labeled. Homosexuality and gender non-conformity have had 
a long history of pathologization, with homosexuality being 
classified as a ‘mental disorder’ until 1973 (Abramovich 2016). 
As a result of this, various stereotypes, stigma, and homophobic 
and transphobic microaggressions still exist today. It should be no 
surprise that one of the most prevalent causes of homelessness 
among queer and trans youth is identity-based family conflict; as 
mentioned previously, a disproportionately large number of 
unhoused youths identify as LGBTQIA+ (Abramovich 2016). 
Youth experience homelessness for a variety of reasons, including 
escaping from abusive homes, emancipating from the foster care 
system, or being raised by unhoused parents (My Friends Place, 
n.d.). It has been estimated that each year, 100,000 children are 
victims of commercial sexual exploitation, with homeless and 
runaway youth being the most vulnerable population (My Friends 
Place, n.d.). Abramovich (2016) analyzes a study from 2016 in 
Toronto, Canada, which reported that LGBTQIA+ youth 
experience institutional erasure and invisibility in attempting to 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 58 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

receive housing support services. As the sheltered system is 
gendered, erasure begins as early as the first formal intake upon 
entrance to a shelter, where youth are asked questions that require 
them to identify as male or female. Additionally, LGBTQIA+ 
cultural competency training is not made mandatory for staff 
working in shelters, which may mean an inadequate ability to 
handle situations of homophobia or transphobia. A combination of 
these factors may lead LGBTQIA+ youth to avoid the shelter 
system. Youth lacking specialized health care services may resort 
to unmonitored street suppliers for transition-related treatment. 
This, of course, can result in severe health complications. 

Given these structural barriers, traditional housing 
support systems often fail to meet the needs of African Americans 
and LGBTQIA+ youth experiencing homelessness. For African 
Americans, systemic discrimination in housing and employment 
limits access to stable housing, while LGBTQIA+ youth 
frequently face exclusion from family support and shelter systems 
due to identity-based bias. These realities underscore the need for 
an approach that removes preconditions for housing and 
prioritizes immediate stability. The Housing First model offers a 
particularly effective solution by providing secure housing 
without requiring individuals first to demonstrate sobriety, 
employment, or compliance with other restrictive conditions. By 
addressing housing as a fundamental right rather than a 
conditional benefit, Housing First is uniquely positioned to break 
cycles of homelessness and mitigate the barriers these 
disproportionately affected groups face. 

Another two-year study in Toronto, Canada, published in 
2016, demonstrated that the Housing First model can be effective 
for ethnic minority groups (Stergiopoulos et al. 2016). A 
randomized controlled trial was conducted for 237 adults from 
ethnic minority groups experiencing mental illness and 
homelessness. To address this specific population, anti-racism and 
anti-oppression practices were implemented alongside rent 
supplements and intensive case management. The main principles 
of the ethnic minority service approach included language use, 
education, alliance building, and social justice activism. 
Immediate access to permanent housing in preferred 
neighborhoods was provided following the Housing First model. 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 59 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

For African Americans, this scattered-site housing approach was 
likely effective because it prevented re-segregation into high-
poverty areas, which historically mirrored failed public housing 
models. Additionally, staff were focused on countering racism, 
discrimination, and power inequities. After 24 months, Housing 
First participants remained stable for a more significant proportion 
than the control group (75% vs. 41%). This evidence suggests that 
the Housing First model should effectively address African 
American unhoused individuals.  

While the Housing First approach has demonstrably 
sound evidence for adult unhoused individuals, research on 
unhoused youth is sparse and even more so for youth identifying 
as LGBTQIA+. Rather than emphasize a scattered-site housing 
model for LGBTQIA+ youth, they may benefit more from 
interconnectedness and community with similarly identifying 
peers. Fostering acceptance and community should be the main 
focus of housing programs seeking to address LGBTQIA+ youth, 
as these are themes that are most critically needed by individuals 
who have already experienced significant social exclusion. Legal 
guardianship is also a concern when serving homeless youth, as it 
challenges self-empowerment, autonomy, and choice.  

 
BARRIERS AND POLICY SOLUTIONS FOR HOUSING 
FIRST 
Challenges to Implementation 
In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1380, which 
required all housing programs to adopt the Housing First model 
(CDH n.d.). Housing First has demonstrated remarkable success 
in reducing homelessness, yet the crisis persists. This raises an 
essential question: If Housing First works, why hasn’t it solved 
homelessness? While the model is effective, its implementation 
has been hindered by structural, political, and economic barriers 
limiting its reach. These challenges include insufficient funding, 
landlord discrimination, and a lack of tailored approaches for 
different populations. Addressing these obstacles requires a 
multifaceted strategy that combines policy reform, tenant 
protections, and shifts in public perception.  

Housing First programs often rely on federal assistance 
programs like the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program to 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 60 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

provide rental subsidies that make housing affordable for low-
income individuals and families, . Section 8 subsidizes rent so 
tenants only pay 30% of their income, while the federal 
government covers the rest (HUD n.d.b). Approximately 60,000 
families in Los Angeles use Section 8 vouchers, making it a 
critical tool for securing housing for people transitioning out of 
homelessness (LA Times 2025). However, even though Section 8 
is widely implemented, it still faces serious limitations that impact 
Housing First’s effectiveness. Despite Section 8 vouchers 
guaranteeing rent payments, many landlords refuse to accept 
tenants who use them due to stigma against low-income renters 
and misconceptions that they are riskier (AMA Consulting Group 
2022). Some landlords impose additional screening criteria, such 
as requiring higher credit scores or rental history, which 
effectively excludes many voucher holders. Without stronger legal 
protection, Section 8 vouchers are often not the ticket out of 
homelessness that they were meant to be.  

Since landlord participation in Section 8 housing is 
necessary, an amendment to California’s Fair Employment and 
Housing Act (FEHA) in 2020 has made it illegal for landlords to 
reject tenants solely because they use a Section 8 Housing Choice 
Voucher to help them afford their rent (Fair Housing Foundation 
2020). However, landlord discrimination against Section 8 tenants 
still occurs. Starting in 2023, the nonprofit Housing Rights 
Initiative (HRI) investigated with undercover investigators who 
posed as prospective tenants with Section 8 vouchers; over a year, 
hundreds of brokers and landlords were contacted. HRI found 
explicit discrimination against voucher holders 44% of the time in 
San Francisco, 53% in Oakland, 58% in San Jose, and 70% in Los 
Angeles (Inner City Law Center 2024). Many states still allow 
landlords to refuse Section 8 vouchers, significantly limiting 
housing options for low-income renters, including those in 
Housing First programs. As of January 2025, only 23 states have 
legislation prohibiting source-of-income discrimination (SOID), 
including protections for Section 8 voucher holders (PRRAC 
2025). However, even in states with SOID laws, the extent of 
protection varies. Some states explicitly exclude housing vouchers 
from their SOID protections, while others have weak enforcement 
mechanisms, allowing discrimination to persist. Wisconsin’s 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 61 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

SOID law does not cover housing vouchers, and Maine and 
Minnesota’s SOID laws are weakened by court interpretation 
(PRRAC 2025). Recent developments have heightened concerns 
about the future of Section 8 housing programs. In early March 
2025, the Los Angeles Housing Authority stopped processing new 
and ongoing applications for Section 8 vouchers, likely due to 
recent funding cuts at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) under the Trump administration. This 
suspension threatens access to stable housing for thousands of 
low-income residents and unhoused individuals who rely on 
federal assistance. As federal funding becomes increasingly 
uncertain, it is more critical than ever to advocate for stronger 
tenant protections, increased investment in affordable housing, 
and policies that ensure the long-term sustainability of housing 
assistance programs. 
 
Policy Recommendations & Successes 
To maximize the effectiveness of Housing First, systemic reforms 
must address barriers to implementation, including discrimination 
against voucher holders, insufficient affordable housing, and the 
need for specialized housing models for marginalized groups. 
Expanding access to housing and reducing structural inequities 
will require stronger legal protections, increased financial 
incentives, and shifts in public perception. State and local 
governments must increase funding for both scattered-site and 
community-based housing options. Expanding the affordable 
housing supply, mainly through mixed-income developments that 
prevent high-poverty concentrations, would enable Housing First 
to operate at the necessary scale for lasting impact. Legislative 
action is also needed at both federal and state levels to safeguard 
Section 8’s role in Housing First programs. Strengthening 
penalties for non-compliant landlords, expanding financial 
incentives such as tax breaks or guaranteed rent payments, and 
enforcing anti-discrimination laws are critical. Additionally, many 
landlords remain unaware that Section 8 guarantees rent 
payments, making it a stable and reliable income source. Public 
education campaigns and direct outreach can address 
misconceptions while streamlining participation requirements to 
encourage greater landlord involvement. States with SOID 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 62 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

protections must also enhance enforcement mechanisms to hold 
landlords accountable. Governments should implement stronger 
oversight, offer incentives such as property insurance discounts, 
and ensure reimbursement for potential damages to reduce 
landlord hesitancy. By addressing these barriers, Housing First 
programs can better secure stable housing for participants, 
breaking cycles of chronic homelessness and ensuring that 
federally funded housing assistance is used as intended. 
California’s Project Homekey exemplifies this approach by 
converting existing hotels and motels into permanent supportive 
housing, rapidly increasing housing availability, and bypassing 
private landlord discrimination. As of August 2024, Project 
Homekey had funded nearly 16,000 housing units, with 172,000 
households projected to be served over the life of the project 
(CDH 2024).  

Recognizing the racial disparities in homelessness, the 
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) Commission 
established the Ad Hoc Committee on Black People Experiencing 
Homelessness in 2018 to examine the causes of Black 
overrepresentation in homelessness, identify opportunities to 
increase racial equity and craft more effective policy 
recommendations addressing Black unhoused individuals 
(LAHSA 2018). More recently, Governor Gavin Newsom (2024) 
signed two bills into law, AB 2835 and AB 3057, to create 
additional shelter and more housing units. By removing the sunset 
date on tenancy rules, AB 2835 will allow service providers to 
place unhoused individuals more easily into privately owned 
hotels and motels for more than 30 days. Additionally, AB 3057 
will streamline the process for local governments to construct 
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units for more affordable housing 
options. While these efforts represent progress, more investment 
is needed to expand Housing First at a scale that meaningfully 
reduces homelessness. 

Abramovich (2016) recommends that to better support 
LGBTQIA+ unhoused youth, the government should support the 
development of housing options that are tailored to LGBTQIA+ 
youth and encourage programs that foster an intersectional 
approach. In addition to providing staff with LGBTQIA+ cultural 
competency training, this approach should encompass 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 63 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

recreational needs, mentorship opportunities, health 
considerations, and cultural connections. Standards that are 
LGBTQIA compatible, such as gender-inclusive washrooms and 
shelter intake processes, should also be enforced. Perhaps most 
critically, government programs should invest in more research 
and programs that specifically address LGBTQIA+ unhoused 
youth. This is particularly important, as LGBTQIA+ individuals 
tend to be undercounted. Nationally, HUD launched an initiative 
in June 2023 as part of the Biden administration (USICH 2023) to 
prevent homelessness among LGBTQIA+ youth and aims to 
provide regular training for LGBTQIA+ youth care providers and 
release a toolkit for best practices on supporting LGBTQIA+ 
youth, among other goals.  

Solving homelessness is not just about policy—it’s also 
about changing the narrative. Public misconceptions—such as the 
belief that unhoused individuals are “unwilling to work” or 
“choose homelessness”—create political resistance to Housing 
First programs. In California, organizations like Yes in My 
Backyard (California YIMBY n.d.) have directed significant 
efforts towards advocating for pro-housing policies and fostering 
public support for housing initiatives. Since 2017, YIMBY has led 
the passage of 18 bills into law, including AB 68 that expands 
Accessory Dwelling Units and SB 330 for accelerating housing 
construction, limiting fees, and protecting tenants, which have 
collectively enabled the potential development of millions of new 
housing units. By engaging communities and policymakers, 
California YIMBY (n.d.) dispels myths about housing 
developments and emphasizes reducing homelessness’ economic 
and social benefits. Expanding similar advocacy efforts could 
further reduce stigma and build political will for long-term 
investments in affordable and supportive housing. 

 
CONCLUSION 
Although this paper is not a primary research source, it draws on 
evidence-based studies to frame a set of policy choices and 
recommendations to address the disproportionate number of 
homeless African Americans and LGBTQIA+ youth in Los 
Angeles. While Housing First has proven to be a highly effective 
model, its full potential remains unrealized due to systemic 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 64 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

barriers, funding shortages, and policy limitations. Addressing 
these challenges requires more than program expansion—it 
demands legislative action, landlord accountability, and a 
fundamental shift in how society perceives homelessness. By 
adapting Housing First to meet diverse needs, increasing 
investment in permanent supportive housing, and combating 
housing discrimination, policymakers can ensure that safe, stable 
housing is accessible to all—particularly the most marginalized 
populations. Despite recent advancements in policy toward 
addressing Black and LGBQIA+ unhoused populations, 
continued research, funding, and programs are necessary to ensure 
a more equitable future. Only through sustained commitment and 
structural reform can Housing First evolve from a promising 
solution into a fully realized pathway out of homelessness.  
 

REFERENCES 
Abramovich, Alex. 2016. “Preventing, Reducing and Ending LGBTQ2S 

Youth Homelessness: The Need for Targeted Strategies.” Social 
Inclusion 4(4). DOI: 10.17645/si.v4i4.669. 

AMA Consulting Group. 2022. “Section 8 Stigmas- Myth vs Reality.” AMA 
Consulting Group. https://amaconsultinggroup.com/blog/section-
8-stigmas/. 

BHHI (Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative). 2024. Toward Equity: 
Understanding Black Californians’ Experiences of Homelessness: 
Findings from the California Statewide Study of People 
Experiencing Homelessness. University of California San 
Francisco. https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/2024-
02/Black%20CA%20Report%202024.pdf 

CDH (California Department of Housing and Community Development). 
n.d. “Housing First Fact Sheet.” Retrieved March 13, 2025. 
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-
funding/docs/housing-first-fact-sheet.pdf. 

CDH. 2024. “California Awards Nine Homekey Projects to Create 533 New 
Permanent Supportive Homes.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-
hcd/newsroom/california-awards-nine-homekey-projects-to-
create-533-new-permanent-supportive-homes 

California YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard). n.d. “Our Impact.” California 
YIMBY. Retrieved March 13, 2025. https://cayimby.org/our-
impact/. 

Fair Housing Foundation. 2020. “Senate Bill 329 FAQ – Fair Housing 
Foundation.” https://fhfca.org/senate-bill-faq/. 

Goetz, Edward G. 2013. New Deal Ruins: Race, Economic Justice, and 
Public Housing Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 65 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

Governor Gavin Newsom. 2024. “Governor Newsom Signs New Laws to 
Help Communities Further Address Homelessness.” Governor of 
California. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/08/27/governor-
newsom-signs-new-laws-to-help-communities-further-address-
homelessness/. 

HUD (U.S. Department of and Housing and Urban Development). n.d.a. 
“History of Fair Housing.” Office of the Inspector General. 
Retrieved November 30, 2023. 
https://web.archive.org/web/20110421012219/http://portal.hud.go
v:80/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_o
pp/aboutfheo/history. 

HUD. n.d.b. “HCV Applicant and Tenant Resources.” Office of the Inspector 
General. Retrieved March 13, 2025. 
https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_s
ection_8#hcv06. 

Inner City Law Center. 2024. “Mass Civil Rights Complaints Filed Against 
203 Real Estate Agents, Brokerage Firms, and Landlords Across 
California for Rampant Housing Discrimination.” Inner City Law. 
https://innercitylaw.org/mass-civil-rights-complaints-filed-
against-203-real-estate-agents-brokerage-firms-and-landlords-
across-california-for-rampant-housing-discrimination/. 

Krisiloff, Flora Gil and Elizabeth S. Boyce. n.d. “Project 50: A Two Year 
Demonstration Project in Skid Row Launched in December 2007 
With Unprecedented Multi-Agencies Collaboration.” Retrieved 
March 13, 2025. https://www.cwda.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/homeless-project-50-la-county.pdf?1449619925. 

LAHSA (Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority). 2018. Report and 
Recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Black People 
Experiencing Homelessness. 

LAHSA. 2023. “LAHSA Releases Results Of 2023 Greater Los Angeles 
Homeless Count.” https://www.lahsa.org/news?article=927-lahsa-
releases-results-of-2023-greater-los-angeles-homeless-count. 

LAHSA. 2024. “8164 - 2024 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Results 
(Long Version).” https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=8164-
2024-greater-los-angeles-homeless-count-results-long-version-
.pdf. 

LA Times. 2025. “Los Angeles Stops Accepting New Applicants for Section 
8, Citing Budget Uncertainty in Washington.” Los Angeles Times. 
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-06/los-angeles-
stops-accepting-new-applicants-for-section-8-citing-budget-
uncertainty-in-washington. 

Marr, Matthew D. 2015. Better Must Come: Exiting Homelessness in Two 
Global Cities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

My Friends Place. n.d. “Youth Homelessness.” Los Angeles: My Friends 
Place. Retrieved March 13, 2025. 
https://www.myfriendsplace.org/youth-homelessness. 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 66 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2023. “State of Homelessness: 2023 
Edition.” National Alliance to End Homelessness. 
https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-
america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/. 

NAEH (National Alliance to End Homelessness). 2023. The Case for 
Housing First. 

NHCHC (National Health Care for the Homeless Council). 2019. 
Homelessness & Health: What’s the Connection? 

Padgett, Deborah, Benjamin F. Henwood, and Sam J. Tsemberis. 2016. 
Housing First: Ending Homelessness, Transforming Systems, and 
Changing Lives. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 

PolicyLink. 2023. An Equity Profile of the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles: 
PERE USC Program for Environmental & Regional Equity. 
https://www.policylink.org/resources-tools/an-equity-profile-of-
los-angeles. 

Poverty & Race Research Action Council. 2025. “APPENDIX B: State, 
Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income 
Discrimination.” Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for 
Building a Successful Housing Mobility Program, 2013. 

Robinson, Brandon Andrew. 2018. “I Want to Be Happy in Life: Success, 
Failure, and Addressing LGBTQ Youth Homelessness.” Pp. 117–
29 in The Unfinished Queer Agenda After Marriage Equality. 
United Kingdom: Routledge. 

Roschelle, Anne R. 2019. Struggling in the Land of Plenty: Race, Class, and 
Gender in the Lives of Homeless Families. Lanham, MD: 
Lexington Books. 

Stergiopoulos, Vicky, Agnes Gozdzik, Vachan Misir, Anna Skosireva, 
Aseefa Sarang, Jo Connelly, Adam Whisler, and Kwame 
McKenzie. 2016. “The Effectiveness of a Housing First Adaptation 
for Ethnic Minority Groups: Findings of a Pragmatic Randomized 
Controlled Trial.” BMC Public Health 16 Article number: 1110. 
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3768-4. 

Talisse, Robert B. 2001. On Rawls. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson 
Learning. 

TBF (The Boston Foundation). 2020. “Researchers Find High Levels of 
Discrimination against Black and Low-Income Renters in New 
Study.” Researchers Find High Levels of Discrimination against 
Black and Low-Income Renters in New Study. 
https://www.tbf.org/news-and-insights/press-
releases/2020/july/housing-voucher-discrimination-report-
20200701. 

 
USICH (United States Interagency Council on Homelessness). 2023. “HUD 

Launches LGBTQI+ Youth Homelessness Initiative.” Retrieved 
November 6, 2024. https://www.usich.gov/news-events/news/hud-
launches-lgbtqi-youth-homelessness-initiative. 



Research | Articles | Chen and Manley 67 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY FORUM VOL. 7 

USICH. n.d. “Homelessness Data & Trends.” Retrieved May 16, 2024. 
https://www.usich.gov/guidance-reports-data/data-trends. 

 
 
 
Jason Chen (He/Him) is a senior Biology major with an option in 
Microbiology and a minor in Real Estate at CSULA, graduating 
in May 2025. He became a licensed real estate agent in Fall 2024 
and is passionate about housing justice, public health, and health 
equity. His interest in housing advocacy began through an Honors 
College course taught by Dr. Theodoric Manley from CSULA’s 
Department of Sociology. Under Dr. Manley’s guidance, Jason 
conducted research on the disproportionate impact of 
homelessness on African American and LGBTQIA+ youth 
communities, which he presented at CSULA’s 2025 Research, 
Scholarship, and Creative Activities Student Symposium. He is 
currently a Clinical Research Assistant at LA General Medical 
Center and USC’s Department of Emergency Medicine, where he 
is interested in investigating how housing insecurity and gender 
identity intersect with health outcomes and barriers to care. 
 
 
 
Theodoric Manley, PhD, served as the instructor for the Honors 
College course HNRS 3200 – Humanities Approaches to Race, 
Ethnicity, and Complex Problems at California State University, 
Los Angeles. His contributions to this manuscript were advisory 
in nature, providing invaluable mentorship, structural feedback, 
and editorial guidance throughout the writing process. 


	Unhoused African Americans and LGBTQIA+ Youth: Disproportionately Overrepresented Groups in the Unhoused Population - Jason Chen and Theodoric Manley, PhD



