The assessment tool dilemma
Vulnerability surveys, a policy initiative launched during the Obama administration in 2009, have since become a staple of homeless assistance programs across the United States. These assessment tools, particularly the Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT), were designed to assess housing needs objectively. The goal was to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals—those at risk of death or serious injury—received immediate housing assistance. However, years of scrutiny have revealed that these vulnerability surveys are inadvertently perpetuating racial disparities in housing support, especially among Black communities, further deepening the barriers to equitable access to homeless services.
Examining systemic racial bias
The fundamental issue with vulnerability surveys lies in the scoring methodology. When the tool was designed, it utilized various factors to rank individuals based on their risk level, including medical history, prior engagement with social services, and chronic health conditions. However, a deeper look into the way these factors are weighted shows a glaring racial bias. Black individuals often have less access to consistent healthcare due to structural inequalities, and many face a deeply ingrained mistrust of institutional systems, including the healthcare system, due to centuries of racial injustice.
As a result, vulnerability surveys heavily penalize Black individuals who, through no fault of their own, may not have extensive documented medical histories. This causes them to score lower than they should, despite experiencing similar—or even more severe—health challenges. The tool, while well-intentioned, has become a tool that inadvertently denies those who need help the most.
Statistical evidence of disparity
The numbers tell a striking story of racial inequity in homelessness, providing irrefutable evidence that Black communities face disproportionately high rates of homelessness in the U.S. While African Americans make up approximately 13% of the general population, they account for nearly 37% of the homeless population. Even more troubling is the fact that Black families make up over half of homeless families nationwide.
These statistics not only highlight the persistence of racial disparities but also underscore how tools like vulnerability surveys unintentionally reinforce them. With such a high percentage of homeless individuals already coming from marginalized communities, it is clear that these assessments, which prioritize certain metrics over others, contribute to a self-perpetuating cycle of discrimination.
The healthcare access factor
One of the most glaring issues within vulnerability surveys is their reliance on documented medical histories. A closer examination reveals that healthcare access itself is a barrier that many Black individuals face. Due to historical discrimination in healthcare systems and higher rates of uninsurance within Black communities, many individuals don’t have a comprehensive medical history that can be included in vulnerability surveys. This lack of documentation—while often painted as a sign of lower need—actually masks the severity of health conditions that go untreated.
Chronic health problems, particularly those related to mental health and substance use, are often undiagnosed in marginalized communities due to lack of access to quality care. As a result, the absence of a paper trail disqualifies many from receiving necessary assistance, despite their significant need. When a scoring system penalizes individuals for a lack of documented health history, it creates a feedback loop where Black communities continue to be marginalized in the housing assistance process.
Economic factors and assessment bias
Another critical factor contributing to the inequity of vulnerability surveys is the tool’s narrow focus. Initially, the tool was designed with a specific population in mind, predominantly white, male individuals in Boston. These people were often homeless due to mental health and substance abuse issues. As a result, the vulnerability surveys heavily weight factors such as mental health conditions and substance use disorders, which may be less prevalent or documented in Black populations.
Black communities, however, are more likely to experience homelessness due to broader economic and systemic issues—poverty, unemployment, housing discrimination, and a lack of affordable housing options. These factors are not always adequately reflected in the surveys, which overlook the root causes of homelessness in favor of specific health-related metrics. By focusing on these narrow factors, the surveys fail to address the wider social and economic forces at play, thereby contributing to the exclusion of those who need help the most.
Innovation in assessment methods
While the use of vulnerability surveys remains a challenge, several progressive cities are leading the way in finding solutions to these biases. Los Angeles has pioneered the use of artificial intelligence to help address racial bias in housing prioritization. By using AI algorithms to analyze patterns of inequality and bias, the city hopes to better allocate housing resources to those who need them the most.
Other cities, such as Las Vegas and Austin, are working to adapt the vulnerability survey criteria to account for systemic issues like incarceration and gentrification. These new models aim to recognize that homelessness is not just about health crises but about the intersection of race, economics, and social policy. For example, Austin’s evaluation process now takes into consideration the effects of displacement due to gentrification, which disproportionately affects Black communities, thus making it more inclusive of the factors that cause housing instability.
The path forward
Addressing the systemic racial bias present in vulnerability surveys requires a multifaceted approach. To be truly equitable, future assessment tools need to expand beyond the narrow criteria currently in use. They should account for broader socioeconomic factors such as income inequality, housing discrimination, and the impact of institutional racism. It is also essential that these tools acknowledge and incorporate historical context to better serve Black individuals, whose experiences of homelessness are deeply influenced by the structures of race and class.
Furthermore, the ongoing push to create fairer, more inclusive systems of housing assistance must be paired with continuous oversight and accountability. The success of cities like Los Angeles and Austin demonstrates that innovation is possible—but only if we are willing to confront the biases that continue to plague systems meant to help the most vulnerable. Only by reimagining vulnerability surveys and adjusting their criteria can we hope to break the cycle of inequity and truly support all individuals in need of housing assistance.