Imagine a system designed to help the most vulnerable among us find stable housing. Now, imagine that same system, despite its best intentions, is inadvertently perpetuating racial bias, making it harder for certain groups to get the help they desperately need. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario; it’s been the reality for unhoused people in Los Angeles for years.
For the past decade, L.A.’s housing intake system used a “vulnerability” score to prioritize individuals for permanent housing. While the aim was to identify those most in need, a critical investigation by The Markup, and subsequent studies, have revealed significant, unsettling flaws. But here’s the good news: change is on the horizon. Let’s delve into what’s happening and what these crucial shifts mean for thousands of Angelenos.
Unpacking the Problem: A Decade of Disparity
The journey to reform began in earnest a little over a year ago when The Markup published an eye-opening investigation. Their findings were stark: the system used to score the “vulnerability” of unhoused individuals consistently rated Black people as significantly less vulnerable than White people. The outcome? Black individuals were less likely to obtain subsidized permanent housing, despite making up a disproportionate 30% of L.A. County’s unhoused population, compared to just 9% of the overall county population.
This wasn’t just a statistical anomaly; it highlighted a deep-seated issue within the very tools meant to offer aid. As City Council Member Nithya Raman, who chairs the Housing and Homelessness committee, candidly put it, “To see that the tool that we’re using to put people in line for housing was not actually housing unhoused Black Angelenos as quickly as we could was really surprising to me.” Her response was swift, introducing a motion that cited The Markup’s article and pressed the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) for a comprehensive reform plan.
The legislation passed unanimously, underscoring a collective recognition that the system, known as the VI-SPDAT, needed a fundamental overhaul. It’s a sobering thought that a tool designed for compassion could, unintentionally, create such an unfair barrier. For individuals already navigating the immense challenges of homelessness, an inequitable intake system adds insult to injury.
Beyond the Headlines: LAHSA’s Evolving Approach
While LAHSA initially missed a deadline to submit a formal reform plan, they haven’t been entirely stagnant. In the past year, the agency has initiated several practical steps aimed at improving how housing is allocated. For example, they’ve started prioritizing certain groups, such as those already enrolled in housing programs or those who have crucial documents like an ID and social security number readily available. This subtle shift acknowledges that readiness for housing isn’t solely about a “vulnerability” score.
Perhaps most significantly, LAHSA has begun to de-emphasize the strict importance of the vulnerability score itself. Previously, only those with the absolute highest scores were prioritized. Now, any individual scoring an eight or above on the 17-point scale can be considered for priority, allowing for more flexibility and a broader consideration of other critical factors.
A Deeper Dive: The USC/UCLA Study Validates the Need for Change
The push for reform gained even stronger academic backing last November. Researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California Los Angeles, in partnership with LAHSA, released a long-awaited study on racial bias in the system. Their findings mirrored The Markup’s investigation, confirming that the VI-SPDAT scoring tool was indeed biased toward White people and, more broadly, was “ineffective overall.”
The study’s conclusion was quite damning: using data on individuals who eventually faced “adverse” events like jail or death, the researchers determined that the tool was “not much more accurate than a random guess at predicting vulnerability.” This is a powerful statement, highlighting that the system wasn’t just unfair; it wasn’t even good at its core job.
A Closer Look at Proposed Reforms: Making Questions Humane
Crucially, the study didn’t just point out problems; it offered concrete solutions. It suggested that the scoring system, which asks intensely personal questions about violence, substance abuse, and other sensitive topics, could be made more accurate and equitable through careful rewording and reframing. The goal? To make the survey less complex, more sensitive, and, critically, less fear-inducing for those answering.
Consider these compelling examples: A question asking if someone has “forced you or tricked you to do things that you do not want to do” is proposed to be amended to explicitly stress that answering yes “will not result in punishment or any negative consequences.” Similarly, a question about selling medication is suggested to be softened to, “Do you have medication that you choose to sell instead of taking to help support yourself financially? Answering yes to this question will not result in punishment or negative consequences for you.” Several other questions were recommended for removal entirely.
These seemingly small changes are monumental. They aim to transform an interrogation-like process into a trauma-informed conversation, fostering trust and encouraging honest answers without fear of penalty. As LAHSA spokesperson Christopher Yee acknowledged, “the VI-SPDAT has shortcomings related to equity,” describing the survey as “long, cumbersome, and not trauma-informed in the content of the questions or administration process.”
The Road Ahead: Navigating Change and Hope
LAHSA has publicly stated its commitment to working with partners and stakeholders to “create a plan to implement and refine” a new iteration of the scoring system. For now, the old version remains in use, particularly for permanent housing placements, as some form of prioritization is required to access certain federal housing funds under U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules. However, scoring has already been dropped for interim housing entry and time-limited subsidy programs.
The planned changes will first be applied to screening for adults, with future explorations into adapting related tools for young people and families with children. This is particularly important, as The Markup’s original investigation found racial disparities were even more pronounced for unhoused individuals under 25. While a firm timeline for the revised tool’s launch isn’t available, LAHSA has indicated that service providers can expect more information on changes to the Coordinated Entry System (CES) early this year.
The journey to truly equitable housing solutions is complex and multifaceted. It requires continuous scrutiny, robust data analysis, and a willingness to adapt even long-standing systems. Council Member Raman, for her part, remains cautiously optimistic, stating that she’s “withholding judgment until data can show how those changes affect who is housed.” But her conviction remains clear: “there’s no question in my mind that CES needs reform.”
This ongoing evolution in how L.A. assesses and houses its unhoused population is more than just an administrative update; it’s a critical step towards greater dignity, fairness, and effectiveness. It reminds us that even systems designed to help can harbor unintended biases, and that true progress lies in the courage to acknowledge those flaws and commit to meaningful, human-centered change.
