Our study gleaned insights to perspectives on causes and responsibility tied to solution affinity.
For audiences who tend to associate individual responsibility for homelessness, attributing it to personal failings like mental illness or substance abuse tend to favor solutions focused on personal accountability, treatment, or punitive measures like fines and jail time. They are more receptive to messaging that highlights the benefits of addressing homelessness for themselves or their immediate community, such as increased property values, reduced crime rates, or cleaner public spaces.
Audiences who associate homelessness to systemic factors like lack of affordable housing favor community based solutions that provide immediate housing with supportive services. They are more responsive to messaging that emphasizes compassion, social responsibility, and the positive impact of helping others.
What we've discovered: breakthrough moments in understanding homelessness solutions don't typically come from grand emotional appeals or overwhelming statistics. Instead, they emerge when messages align with a person's existing worldview while gently expanding their perspective.
Take the suburban property owner with a six-figure income who initially viewed homelessness through the lens of personal safety concerns. Our data shows these individuals don't suddenly transform into housing advocates through moral arguments. Instead, their breakthrough moments often come through understanding how housing stability programs reduce public spending on emergency services—a cost reduction that speaks directly to their value of fiscal responsibility.
When examining how different groups process and respond to messages about homelessness solutions, the temptation is to rely on simple demographic divisions—urban versus rural, high income versus low-income, liberal versus conservative. Our research shows why this approach falls short.
While single-signal analysis provides directional insights, it fails to capture the complex interplay of factors that truly shape how people understand and respond to housing initiatives. The data revealed that looking at income alone, for instance, explains only 7.2% of the variance in how people respond to self-benefit messaging. Political affiliation, while significant, accounts for just 4% of the variance in altruistic response patterns. Even geographic location, often considered a defining factor, proves less predictive than conventional wisdom suggests.
What emerges from deeper analysis is far more revealing. By examining the intersection of multiple factors—income, education, location, political affiliation, and lived experience—we identified three distinct clusters whose response patterns illuminate the true complexity of public engagement with homelessness solutions. That being said, for lack of a better label, we’ll rely on the rather flawed but readily understandable characteristic of income as a way to label the three core, persuadable groups.
These groups—Urban Middle-income, Suburban Middle-income, and Urban Low-income clusters—represent not just general demographic categories, but fundamentally different frameworks for understanding housing stability and community well-being.
(Data shows broad distribution, but concentrated in 25-44 range)
In urban communities where economic vulnerability is a daily reality, we find a perspective shaped by direct experience with housing instability and systemic barriers. These individuals, often working in service or hourly positions while navigating their own housing challenges, bring a profound understanding of how community support systems can make the difference between stability and crisis.
Urban Low-income residents emerge as perhaps our most complex cluster. Their responses reflect direct experience with housing instability—either personal or within their immediate community. The data shows this group maintains the highest dual receptivity to both altruistic messaging and practical support frameworks. Their perspective isn't shaped by abstract policy preferences but by lived experience with how housing stability impacts every aspect of life.
This cluster shows particularly strong engagement with messages that emphasize fairness and systemic solutions. They recognize homelessness not as an abstract social issue, but as a real threat that could affect anyone facing economic uncertainty. The data reveals that in this group, those with no income or earning under $20,000 annually showed a very positive response rate to altruistic messaging while maintaining significant engagement with practical support frameworks.
What sets this group apart is their grasp of the interconnected nature of community stability. Their responses consistently show support for comprehensive solutions that address both immediate needs and long-term systemic changes. As one of our key demographic clusters, they often serve as powerful advocates within their communities, understanding firsthand how housing stability impacts every aspect of life—from employment to education to health outcomes.
Their perspective isn't just about compassion—it's about survival and community resilience. When presented with information about housing solutions, they demonstrate strong support for approaches that combine immediate practical assistance with longer-term systemic change, recognizing that both are necessary for creating lasting stability.
Primarily rely on altruistic messaging: “We all do better when every neighbor has a safe place to call home.”
Gently introduce personal uplift: “When we lift each other up, you’ll also find that you have greater peace of mind and the support needed to move forward in life.”
Individuals in lower-income urban settings often look for fairness, empathy, and communal support.
Altruistic messaging resonates strongly as it acknowledges systemic struggles and posits shared solutions.
The Urban Middle-income cluster emerges in our data as a group whose views align not just because they share a zip code or income bracket, but because they inhabit a specific intersection of education, economic opportunity, and urban experience. These individuals, typically holding advanced degrees and working in knowledge-economy jobs, demonstrate the highest response rates to messages framing housing solutions as part of broader systemic change. What makes them unique isn't just their education or income—it's how these factors combine to create a worldview where individual success is seen as inextricably linked to community health.
When presented with information about homelessness solutions, this group shows a remarkable 72% positive response rate to messages that frame the issue in terms of collective impact. They readily grasp how the ripples of positive change in one area of society can influence all others.
Our research reveals that this group's support for housing initiatives correlates strongly with their understanding of urban ecosystems. They grasp intuitively how neighborhood stability, economic vitality, and social services interconnect. The data shows particularly strong engagement with messages that link individual housing solutions to broader community outcomes.
This cluster demonstrates what our research terms "sophisticated altruism"—their support for housing initiatives isn't purely emotional or purely practical, but rather reflects an understanding of how community well-being directly impacts individual quality of life. When presented with evidence-based solutions, they show high response rates to messages that connect personal benefit with community impact.
Particularly notable is this group's response to data-driven narratives: those with master's degrees or higher show the strongest engagement with messages that link housing stability to economic vitality, public health outcomes, and urban vibrancy. They understand that their own prosperity is inextricably linked to the health of the broader community.
Emphasize how solving community issues (like reducing homelessness or improving public health) leads to a more vibrant, dynamic city that Nadia can enjoy.
Use a blended approach: start with altruistic (“Our city thrives when everyone has a safe place to call home”) and pivot to self-benefit (“When our neighborhoods are safe, your evenings out are worry-free and enriched by a more vibrant culture.”).
Urban professionals often value social progress and have a strong moral compass.
They also appreciate how a stable community improves their personal day-to-day experiences. Access to diverse shops, safer streets, and more cultural events.
Drive out to the tree-lined streets of America's suburbs, and you'll find a different psychological framework at work. Here, where families have often invested everything into creating stable environments for their children, the lens shifts to one of preservation and protection. This isn't callousness—it's a deep-seated responsibility to protect what they've built.
When multiple factors align—home ownership, high income, and suburban location—we see consistent response patterns that differ markedly from both urban professionals and low-income urban residents. This group shows strong positive response rates (65-70%) to messages emphasizing stability, security, and property values.
Our research shows this Suburban Middle-Income group responds most strongly (65% positive response rate) to messages that acknowledge and address their legitimate concerns about community stability and property values. They're not opposed to helping—they need to understand how solutions to homelessness align with their core value of maintaining secure, thriving neighborhoods.
In communities defined by carefully maintained lawns and strong property values, we find a demographic whose relationship with housing issues is shaped by deep investment—both financial and emotional—in neighborhood stability. These individuals, often earning between $100,000-$200,000 annually, view social issues through the lens of preserving and protecting the community they've worked to build.
Our data reveals an illuminating pattern: this cluster shows the strongest response rates (between 65-70%) to messages that frame homelessness solutions through the impact on neighborhood safety, property values, and fiscal responsibility. This isn't mere self-interest—it reflects a deeply held value system where stability and security serve as foundations for community well-being.
The research also shows particularly strong engagement when messages acknowledge their role as community stakeholders. Those with advanced degrees within this group demonstrate sophisticated understanding of cost-benefit analyses, responding positively to data-driven arguments about the fiscal advantages of preventive solutions over emergency responses.
However, we see an interesting variance in the data: as with all groups, within this group, those who report knowing someone who has experienced homelessness show higher receptivity (41-45%) to messages about systemic solutions, suggesting that personal connection can bridge the gap between property-focused and community-focused concerns. This was apparent across all clusters we studied.
Start with self-benefit messaging: “Protect your property values and family’s future by investing in community stability.”
Subtly introduce altruistic elements if appropriate: “When everyone is secure, your family thrives in a healthier, safer environment.”
This cluster responds strongly to messages that emphasize stability, security, and tangible returns on any investment of time or money.
They may be less swayed by purely altruistic appeals but will be open to them if such appeals are shown to reinforce their personal gains.
