Addressing Homelessness: A Comparative Analysis of State Policies, Funding, and Responses to Federal Changes
Luke Burston, Fiorela Caro, Emily Evers, Tiffany Motachwa, Gabrielle Rubenstein, Maria Skidmore and Ra’Zulu Ukawabutu
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Julia Sass Rubin
Read Report
Homelessness in New Jersey has increased 70% between 2021 and 2025 (Point in Time Counts). This exponential rise in homelessness can be attributed to rising housing costs, a shortage of affordable housing, and changes in federal homelessness funding policy (NJDCA, 2025; HUD, 2021). Recent changes to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) have also introduced deep concerns regarding the long-term stability of federal funding, particularly for permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing programs.
This report was developed for the NJ Coalition to End Homelessness (NJCEH) as part of a Rutgers University — New Brunswick Master of Public Policy Practicum to examine how New Jersey compares to selected peer states in allocating and structuring state funding for homeless services, responding to federal funding changes, and addressing issues related to the criminalization of homelessness.
New Jersey spends significantly less on homeless services than all but one state in the study. Five states were ultimately selected for deeper analysis: Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The analysis found that New Jersey’s current investment in homelessness services remains notably low relative to four of the five states in the study, with only Rhode Island spending less. Several states examined allocate substantially more state funding toward homelessness-specific programs than New Jersey — with Massachusetts and Connecticut allocating nearly double the amount New Jersey does per unhoused individual on their homelessness response systems.
States are playing an increasing role in planning proactive responses to instability in federal CoC funding. States examined in this report describe efforts to coordinate with local Continuums of Care, reallocate existing funding streams, enhance data systems, and implement temporary funding measures to maintain continuity of services during periods of uncertainty. Some states also report increased communication and coordination with municipalities and nonprofit providers regarding changes to federal funding requirements.
The analysis also examines state approaches related to the criminalization of homelessness, particularly following the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. Three states included in this report — Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Illinois — had enacted Homeless Bills of Rights or similar protections establishing rights related to access to public spaces and nondiscrimination for individuals experiencing homelessness. For each of those states, the legislation was passed over a decade ago, before the Grants Pass decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, so these laws do not account for the new spate of municipal-level ordinances prohibiting encampments or targeting other survival acts in public places, such as sleeping, using blankets, panhandling near transit areas, or living in vehicles, following the Grants Pass decision. Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are all currently considering bills to limit the power of municipalities to criminalize homelessness. For Vermont and Massachusetts, this legislation would also include a bill of rights for people experiencing homelessness.
The research utilized a mixed-methods approach that included policy analysis and qualitative interviews with public officials, nonprofit leaders, and advocates. The five peer states were selected based on factors including participation in the State of Washington v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development lawsuit in response to the 2025 CoC NOFO and broader policy comparability to New Jersey.
Overall, the analysis identifies common themes across the selected states, including increased state involvement in homelessness funding, expanded coordination across agencies and service providers, and growing attention to system planning and data infrastructure. The findings also reflect the challenges states are facing as homelessness increases and federal funding policies continue to evolve. These case studies provide context for understanding how different states structure and support homelessness response systems within changing fiscal and policy environments.