Conditional Inclusion: How Landlord Logics Shape Supportive Housing Access for the Homeless

• In Event: Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility Section Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): 6. Inequality in Housing and Neighborhoods

Abstract

This study examines how private landlords shape access to supportive housing for individuals exiting homelessness within a Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) program. Amid record levels of homelessness in the United States—771,480 individuals in 2024—policymakers have increasingly relied on market-based solutions that depend on private landlords to deliver housing assistance. While programs such as PSH expand access in principle, they also shift key implementation decisions to landlords, whose participation is voluntary and discretionary.

Drawing on 40 in-depth interviews with landlords participating in Baltimore’s PLASE supportive housing program, the study introduces the concept of conditional inclusion: access to housing is extended selectively, contingent on landlords’ interpretations of risk, tenant behavior, and program functioning. The analysis develops a framework of five interrelated “logics of inclusion”—economic, institutional, clinical, moral, and disciplinary—that landlords use to evaluate prospective tenants and determine the terms under which they are willing to provide housing.

Findings show that financial incentives, particularly guaranteed rent, encourage participation but are insufficient on their own. Landlords also rely heavily on institutional supports, especially caseworkers, to mitigate risk and manage tenant challenges. Notably, mental health diagnoses often increase tenant acceptance by rendering behavior more legible and manageable, while moral commitments motivate some landlords but rarely produce unconditional inclusion. At the same time, disciplinary expectations—such as requirements for tenant compliance and progress—reintroduce conditionality into Housing First models designed to minimize barriers.
The study highlights how supportive housing can reproduce new forms of stratification, privileging tenants whose needs are institutionally legible while excluding others. It concludes that expanding supportive housing requires not only financial investment, but also strengthening case management, reducing administrative friction, addressing stigma, and reconsidering the limits of relying on private landlords to deliver public goods.

Author

• Meredith Greif, Johns Hopkins University