Finding Home: lived‑experience survey finds people prefer apartments and need rent assistance, peer supports and diversified housing options

The Welcome Home Coalition presented the Finding Home report to the Homelessness and Housing Committee on Nov. 4, sharing results from a participatory study of people with lived experience of homelessness and a set of policy recommendations informed by those voices.

Lauren Armani, Voices for Housing Justice training manager at Welcome Home Coalition, and Melissa Bishop, senior housing and facilities director at a peer organization, described a two‑and‑a‑half year, community‑based research process: a survey of 429 people conducted by outreach workers with lived experience, community analysis groups that reviewed preliminary results, and data‑walks at five day centers that gathered feedback from more than 215 additional participants.

Major findings: respondents ranked apartments and houses as the most preferred housing types and ranked shelters and outdoor living as the least preferred. Ninety‑one percent of survey respondents said they would move into housing —if they could afford it at their current income.— The report found respondents most frequently identified rent assistance and supportive services (peer supports, recovery services, mental health, workforce development and primary care) as necessary to obtain and retain housing.

"Housing alone isn't the finish line," Armani said. "When housing first is done to fidelity and is staffed to meet the population's needs, we see success. But we have to fund the supportive services that keep people housed."

The report lists specific policy recommendations: increase eviction prevention and rapid rent assistance; expand peer‑delivered and recovery‑oriented services; diversify non‑market and market interventions including acquisition and social‑housing models; pilot and support tiny home and sanctioned encampment options where appropriate; and create a compensated, decision‑making council of people with lived experience.

During Q&A, council members raised tradeoffs between program rules (for example, curfews, guest restrictions, mandatory case management and no‑drug policies) and the report—s finding that such rules are frequently cited as deal breakers for prospective tenants. Presenters said many refusals stem from rules that reduce autonomy or safety and emphasized the need to design programs that balance participant preferences with safety and service goals. Several council members asked for continued dialogue with county service providers about how to structure programs so they both protect neighbors and meet participants' needs.

The coalition's presenters asked the committee to fund rent assistance and supportive services at scale, prioritize peer‑delivered programs, and include people with lived experience in planning and budget decisions. Committee members requested further data tracking on service outcomes, workforce pathways for residents and follow‑up on pilot programs that demonstrated higher retention rates when services were adequately staffed.

The coalition's full report and appendices include methodology, survey instrument, community analysis notes and the policy recommendations described to the committee.