Housing Is a Human Right: Analyzing Springfield’s Housing Crisis – A Call To Action

 Springfield, Illinois — the Land of Lincoln — is supposed to be the heart of America. It’s a city that carries the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and everything he stood for: fairness, equality, and unity.

You’d think a place with that kind of history would lead the way in social justice and strong communities. But there’s something we’re not talking about enough — a housing crisis that’s punishing people for being poor, and a system that isn’t doing nearly enough to fix it.

One only has to walk in downtown Springfield to see all of the history for themselves. The monuments, the old buildings — this is where Lincoln lived, worked, and wrote his First Inaugural Address. A once powerful figure, in a city that he loved and grew up in. If he could see the city today, would he be proud of what it’s become? Honestly, I’m not so sure.

Abraham Lincoln knew what it meant to struggle — born into poverty, raised in hardship, and largely an autodidact who educated himself through sheer will and hard work. If he were alive today, would he accept that thousands of families in Springfield — the city that honors his name — have no stable place to call home?

According to the Springfield Housing Authority (SHA), more than 3,000 families in Sangamon County are currently on the waitlist for affordable housing, with no clear timeline for when their needs will be met. Over the past five years, the average rent in Springfield has surged by nearly 20%. I can personally relate — I pay $1,400 a month for a 3-bedroom, 1,300 sq. ft. apartment. This increase has far outpaced wage growth, which has consistently lagged behind inflation. What this means is simple: people are struggling to make ends meet, and affordable housing remains incredibly scarce.

Residents are often forced into expensive leases because they don’t qualify for mortgages, while the safer neighborhoods (mainly on the West side of Springfield) — those where families might hope to build a better life — are priced out of reach. This forces many into unsafe living environments, where conditions are often subpar and the stress of living paycheck to paycheck takes a toll on both physical and mental health.

Take Sandra, a single mother of two in Springfield. She’s been on the SHA waitlist for over a year while working two jobs. She can’t afford the rent in safer neighborhoods, so she stays in an area where she doesn’t feel safe letting her kids play outside.

So what can we do? First, affordable housing needs to be at the forefront of policy discussion.

Safe, affordable and accessible units in communities that provide access to quality schooling and affordable healthcare. Policy priorities that focus on housing as a fundamental human right—one that everyone, regardless of income, should have access to without fear of homelessness. Housing is a human right.

Expanding housing voucher programs is one critical step. When SHA is overwhelmed and underfunded, it’s up to lawmakers to step up. What this comes down to is public representatives pushing for more funding in the public housing sector to address chronic housing instability that plagues so many Springfield residents. Building a strong and more inclusive community within Springfield would prioritize people over profit—one that Lincoln may actually recognize as just.

If you want a community that thrives and is representative of all, and not just those privileged few, then it starts with us. Write to your local representatives and let them know that you want affordable housing as a top priority. Go to the Capitol building and request an audience with them.

The benefit of living in Springfield is that our representatives are only minutes away at any given time. Be the voice that won’t let this issue get pushed to the back burner.

As the Land of Lincoln, Springfield should be a beacon of justice and equality — just as it was in Lincoln’s time. Let’s make sure that when people think of Springfield, they don’t just think of history, but of a city that stands up for its people. Springfield should be a leader, not a follower — and that starts with you and me.

The How, and Why Wonder Book version of a Descriptive Paper about Housing Choice Vouchers

 What Is Section 8 and How Does It Help People?

Life is expensive, and rent is only going up. For many people, paying rent while covering basic needs like food, gas, or medicine is a constant struggle. That's where Section 8 comes in. It's a program that helps low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities afford a place to live.

Why Do We Need Section 8?

Not everyone has the income to cover rent and other basic living expenses. Even some people working full-time still can’t afford a decent place to live. Section 8 helps by covering part of the rent so families can live in safe homes without constantly worrying about eviction or homelessness.

So, What Is Section 8 Exactly?

Section 8 is a rental assistance program. It gives people a voucher (like a coupon) to help pay their rent. You don’t have to live in public housing. The voucher can be used with private landlords as long as they agree to accept it.

Here’s how it works:

• You apply through your local housing office, called the Public Housing Authority (PHA).
• If approved and a voucher is available, the government pays part of your rent directly to your landlord.
• You pay the remaining portion, usually about 30% of your income.

For example, if you make $1,500 a month, you might only pay about $450 for rent, and Section 8 will cover the rest.

Who Can Get Section 8?

To qualify for Section 8, you have to:

• Be a U.S. citizen or a legal resident.
• Have a low income (the exact amount depends on where you live).
• Pass a background check (looking at things like criminal history or past evictions).
• Meet other local rules based on your specific area.

Most Section 8 participants are families with kids, seniors, or people with disabilities. But single adults with low incomes can also apply.

How Do You Apply?

1. Find your local housing office: You can search for “Section 8 [your city]” on Google or visit HUD.gov.
2. Check if they are accepting applications: Some housing offices only open their waiting lists once a year, so keep an eye out.
3. Fill out the form: You’ll provide details about your income, family size, and current living situation.
4. Wait for your name to come up: Depending on where you live, this could take months or even years.
5. If you’re chosen, you’ll receive a voucher and can start looking for a rental.
6. Once you find a place, the housing office will inspect it to make sure it’s safe and that the rent is fair.

How Much Help Do You Get?

The amount of help you receive depends on several factors:

• Your income
• The size of your family
• The rent prices in your area

Typically, you pay about 30% of your income for rent, and Section 8 covers the rest. But they won’t cover rent for places that are too expensive. Each area has a limit on how much they’ll pay based on something called Fair Market Rent.

Real Story – Maria’s Journey

Maria is a 33-year-old single mom from Decatur, Illinois. She works full-time at a nursing home and picks up extra shifts when she can. Despite all her hard work, rent kept going up, and she started falling behind. The stress of constantly worrying about eviction was overwhelming.

One day, a coworker told her about Section 8. Maria applied and was placed on the waiting list. It took almost three years, but when her name was called, she felt like she could finally breathe.

Now, Maria pays about 30% of her income for rent and lives in a safe, clean apartment close to her kids’ school. She’s been able to start saving for a used car and took her youngest to the dentist without stressing about how to pay.

“I used to have to choose between rent and groceries. Now, I can finally do both,” says Maria.

While Section 8 didn’t solve all her problems, it gave her a second chance.

What’s Good About Section 8?

• It helps families stay in their homes and avoid homelessness.
• Kids can stay in the same school and have a better chance at success.
• It helps families move to safer neighborhoods, not just low-income areas.
• Families can use the savings on rent for other important needs like food, gas, or medicine.
• It provides families with stability, reducing stress and opening up more opportunities for the future.

What’s Not So Good?

• Long waiting lists: Some families are on the list for years before they can get help.
• Not every landlord accepts Section 8 vouchers, which can make it harder to find housing.
• Limited funding means not everyone who qualifies can get assistance.
• Some people criticize the program, saying it’s unfair or that others take advantage of it.
• Section 8 often pushes renters into poorer neighborhoods, which can keep the cycle of poverty going.

Why Section 8 Still Matters

Even with its flaws, Section 8 helps millions of people stay housed. It’s not a free ride—people still pay a portion of their rent—but it makes a huge difference, especially when finances are tight. Stable housing leads to less stress, better health, and more opportunities for families to thrive.

When I was a child, I loved to read How and Why Wonder Books, which were non-fiction books for children that introduced topics such as dinosaurs, ocean life, astronomy, birds, and so forth to children. I think many of us in our 50s or 60s may have grown up with these books.  Your paper reminded me of the format of those books.  That is a good thing.  I really like how you presented the information you gathered about housing choice vouchers.

I have done research on persons who live in public housing and various other types of low-income neighborhoods in urban areas, and as I often did my interviewing inside people's homes, I was able to notice that the Public Housing and Section 8 Housing was generally better than the low-income affordable private market rate housing.  People seemed to feel a bit ashamed if they lived with housing subsidies or in public housing, but it seemed to me that they were better off staying in such housing arrangements. 

You might have mentioned that the fair market rate is a typical rental cost for an apartment at the 40th percentile, where 60% of similar apartments would cost more, and 40% would cost less.  Apartments do not have to be exactly at the fair market rate, but the average rents paid with vouchers should not exceed the fair market rate. 

Free Writing Exercise with student considering housing and mental health policies

 In almost every class I have taken in the social work department, a topic that has come up has been homelessness and mental health. The idea of homelessness still baffles me and raises so many questions. I think the problem with homelessness in the United States is that it is a multi-faceted problem. There is not one issue that we can pinpoint as the source of the problem. There are so many different factors that go into homelessness. The one factor that I feel we really need to hone in on is mental health. The mental health crisis in America has and will continue to be an issue unless we actually work to create and reform a good mental health care system in our country. Too often, people do not get the help that they need, and they end up on the street. The documentary we watched titled Bedlam was a great representation of the connection between mental health and homelessness. I do not remember exactly what the statistic is for people who are homeless and also suffering from a mental illness, but I know that number is way too high. Instead of putting those who suffer from mental illness on the street to fend for themselves, they should be receiving supportive care to help them live a normal life. 

Because persons with serious mental illness or substance use disorders tend to have a lot more difficulty getting out of homelessness, they tend to remain homeless for a longer time.  Thus, if someone is doing a point-in-time count of unhoused persons, and they are looking at people on the streets and in the emergency shelters, they will find most of the persons they see have mental illness problems and/or substance use problems.  However, if you look at al the people who come in contact with homeless services over a year, or you count unhoused persons including persons in transitional shelters and persons staying with friends or family in informal arrangements (sleeping on cots, couches, or in sleeping bags on the floor), you would find that a smaller fraction of those who experience homelessness in a year do so with a mental illness or substance use disorder. The census of persons suffering from homelessness in Springfield, Illinois typical counts about 25% of the persons as having a serious mental illness. Typically, the serious mental illness count is between 70 and 90, and the total count is around 320 to 350. You have to remember that this is a point-in-time count, so it will overrepresent persons who experience chronic homelessness, which means it is over-representing persons with serious mental illness.

I think most people accept that we may have frictional homelessness, where an individual or family is evicted, hasn't a friend or family member with whom they can stay, and so they must use an emergency shelter.  However, without a serious addiction or mental illness, most of these people can, with support and help from case workers, social workers, employment services, and housing services, be back in an apartment within a month or two, and then be paying the rent for their apartment with money they earn (or at least paying a substantial share of their monthly rent with their own money) within a few more months. So, if we have a certain number of unhoused persons in our community, but the case records show that everyone who shows up in an emergency shelter is housed within eight weeks, then I think that would be a situation that we would call a “functional end of homelessness” and an end of chronic homelessness. 

I think the documentary Bedlam showed that there are not a sufficient supply of mental health professionals, mental health day clinics, mental health oriented supportive housing, or residential facilities catering to persons with serious mental illness. The documentary also showed there is an insufficient supply of affordable or subsidized studio apartments where persons suffering from chronic health and mental health problems could stay, whether they are able to pay the rent or not. 

Another problem with homeless people who have psychiatric problems is incarceration. Too often, those experiencing a mental health crisis will be thrown into a prison without getting the adequate help they need to improve their mental situation. They are not given proper care and their behavior does not change because of this. Putting a mentally ill person in prison instead of a mental hospital is only hurting them. I feel like the culture and taboo around the idea of mental health is improving, but only for certain diagnosis’. For example, I feel as if the discussion around depression and anxiety has been more normalized, but the “heavier” diagnosis’ such as BPD and schizophrenia still have an overwhelmingly negative stigma around them. In reality, people living with these kinds of psychiatric disorders are the ones who need the most support in our world. I cannot imagine how truly terrifying it must be to live in a delusional reality that is not real to anyone besides yourself. That must be the most isolating feeling someone can experience. 

In a given year, maybe 6% of people will have some serious symptoms of a depressive disorder, and maybe 10% will be dealing with an addiction.  If we include the immediate families of all these people, I'm sure we're looking at about a quarter of the population either experiencing depression or addiction directly or through a close family member or intimate friend. That's about 85 million Americans with experiences with those sorts of problems.  With psychotic disorders, we might have 0.3% to 0.4% experiencing schizophrenia or something related to it, and maybe 1% of the population lives with someone suffering from such a disorder.  So, that's about 4 to 5 million Americans either living with a psychotic disorder or having a close family member or intimate friend who is dealing with a psychotic disorder. 

We have room in our prisons and jails for a couple million incarcerated persons.  There are about a million persons with psychotic disorders.  With medication and family and public support, probably 600,000 to 700,000 of those persons with psychotic disorders can live fairly independently and have nearly normal lives, with friends and family visiting them.  They may need to live modestly, as most of them will not be able to hold employment, but they won’t need to live in a state hospital or a locked mental health facility, and they certainly would not need to be incarcerated. However, I think about 400,000 to 300,000 persons with psychotic disorders probably are not responding well to medications, or they do not have social supports and families who have the time and money resources to take care of them. We certainly have not made it a priority to help these hundreds of thousands of persons get into safe and secure long-term living facilities where they would receive the support they need to live safely.  Tens of thousands of these people will end up incarcerated, and it seems to me that over half of them are living in desperation on the streets and in emergency shelters.

In an ideal world, we would have a mental healthcare system setup that is universal and effective. Everyone in the United States needs access to mental healthcare whether that is in person or online through telehealth. If we could provide services free of charge for everyone, I feel as if a lot of lives could be saved/improved. It also needs to be able to provide services such as everyday therapy to drug rehabilitation. Having a wide array of services means that the system would need to have all kinds of professionals on teams to work with people. I also feel as if we should do regular screenings for mental health and certain conditions and start these very early on in life. When intervention can happen early in life, the disease can be managed, and this will improve the person's life as they continue on into adulthood. We also need to be able to provide good hospital spaces and halfway houses for those who need more attention than others. Some people cannot live through their lives by themselves if they have a very serious diagnosis. We need to be able to provide safe spaces for people so they do not end up on the streets. The last place someone with schizophrenia should be is homeless on the street. Overall, I feel like the general attitude towards mental health and mental health crises needs to change. There are so many people who still do not really believe in mental health, my own father is included in this. To be able to move forward as a society and continue research, people need to have an open mind that mental health crises are very real and can be harmful if they are left untreated. While I do feel like we are making some progress, we still have a long way to go before we can formulate a good mental healthcare system that works for everyone, especially the most unfortunate of our population. 

I believe the costs of regular screening of everyone aged 18 to 30 for prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia and then providing intensive cognitive therapy to everyone who seems to be developing the prodromal symptoms would be expensive, but would prevent so many fully developed cases of schizophrenia that the net costs would be less than the current situation where we allow schizophrenia to develop, even though we have methods that can usually prevent it.  Likewise, we are clearly putting too little investment in the sort of psychological and social training that would prevent addictions.  And, obviously, we are not investing sufficiently in treatment for addictions and mental illness. A city such as Springfield with about 110,000 inhabitants ought to have fewer than 1,000 persons with schizophrenia (probably slightly fewer than 500 persons with schizophrenia). With about ten full-time caseworkers we could do a lot for the 200 to 300 of those persons who would need lots of supports and help with securing and maintaining themselves in safe and dignity-enhancing housing. Salaries and benefits and administrative support for about 10 full-time mental health professionals would be less than $1.5 million.  It seems to me that for every 100,000 persons in a county or city, the county boards or city councils out to budget about $2 million for local mental health services (to supplement state and federal and public health and private mental health care).  The expense of $2 million per 100,000 residents ought to just be a normal budget item for local governments, just like the expense of providing 2.4 sworn police officers for every 1000 residents, or a certain standard amount for libraries, fire protection, and public works. 

I also think local governments ought to create parastatal (private non-profit organizations that are governed by rules established by the elected government and with directors who are appointed by elected officials) housing development corporations that would work with planning and economic development offices at the city our county level to regularly increase the supply of social housing.  That is, the government ought to set up some non-profit housing corporations that build new housing or renovate and improve existing housing so that there is an ever-increasing supply of non-profit housing available in the local housing market. When bonds or mortgages are being paid off, as no profit is being taken, the rents in such housing would typically be 5% to 10% lower in cost than in the private sector.  Once mortgages or bonds are paid off, so that the only need for rent is to pay into escrow for maintaining the physical structures, paying for insurance, and paying property taxes, the costs of rent on such non-profit properties would drop to about 30% to 40% below private market rental rates.  Once 20% to 30% of rental housing in a community was being run by the non-profit housing corporation, private sector rents would also decline steeply because of competition for residents.  Even in Springfield, Illinois, where housing costs relative to median incomes are some of the most affordable in the nation, this sort of non-profit housing development corporation is needed so we can increase our supply of affordable housing by about 1,000 units.  In unaffordable places like the major cities of the west coast or the northeast, such housing development corporations are absolutely necessary, and it's shocking to me that allegedly progressive or liberal city administrations in those cities are not creating such entities or funding them sufficiently to have them significantly increase the supply of public housing.  There are models people could examine to see how this can work: Singapore, Hong Kong, Vienna, The Netherlands, Denmark, etc.  

Student reaction to zoning and housing segregation

I want to write about the need for a reform in the public housing system and zoning laws. As of right now, the waiting list for public housing is approximately eight years long, and vouchers are not always accepted by landlords when they are actually obtained. Part of the reason is zoning laws, which stipulate how land can be used in order to protect the property values of the area. It sounds like a good idea until you get into what it actually means and what population these laws cater to. By reforming both the public housing system and zoning laws, there would be less homeless people and more prosperity to go around.

Zoning laws have a long history going back into the early 20th century, and to a certain extent, they perpetuate racism and segregation. One notable practice that stemmed from zoning laws was redlining. Redlining denied access and financial services such as mortgages, insurance and home loans to minority peoples on the basis that these populations were hazardous to the community and thus brought down property values. From redlining came blockbusting in which real estate agents would tell residents that a minority family was moving in and that the value of their property would go down if they stayed. Sound familiar? Well, it should because residential housing properties for low income families have been denied for those very reasons.

The block-busting approach included getting some minority families into a neighborhood, warning homeowners that the neighborhood would quickly transition to a minority-dominated community with housing values 20% or 30% lower, and urging people to sell their properties to the real estate agents for merely 5% or 10% below market value.  Sell now at a slight loss rather than holding on to your home and having it drop 20-30% in value, or worse.  Initially, only the European-American families who had the least tolerance to minority neighbors would take the offers, and that would the most prejudiced and fearful 5% of the population who wanted no minorities at all in their community, but then the next 5% to 10% of white homeowners who would not tolerate 5% would feel compelled to sell and flee.  And then the next most prejudiced who would not tolerate 10% or 15% of their neighbors being Black.  And so, within a matter of a few years, most of the white households would have departed, and most of their homes would have been purchased by black families.  The real estate speculators would have grabbed up properties with discounts because of the white flight, but could sell the homes to Black householders at a higher rate, since Black Americans could only purchase homes in certain areas, and since their supply was constrained, they often ended up purchasing homes at artificially inflated prices. 

If you examine the 1940 residential security map of neighborhoods shown above, the  community marked as D-7A was marked as “infiltrated by negroes” but most of the other neighborhoods colored red were simply considered low quality communities because the homes in those neighborhoods were older and smaller, and the homes were not as well-kept as the housing in the yellow, blue, or green neighborhoods. Rather than thinking that a community ought to be well-mixed in terms of incomes, so that houses of various sizes and quality could be scattered around a community, the map shown above shows that realtors and banks cooperated with city officials in charge of zoning to create areas of lower-quality housing and areas of higher quality of housing, so that large blocks of houses of similar quality (and price) were clustered together. 

There was no thought that bankers and city planning commissions or zoning boards should intervene in the housing market to transform more of the red-zone communities into yellow-zone or blue-zone, nor would they have imagined there could be any benefit for putting lower-quality housing into the green-zone or blue-zone neighborhoods. 

By not reforming zoning laws we are prolonging unfair policies which contribute to poverty in certain populations. The current zoning laws reduce affordable housing options, increase housing costs, limit economic mobility and ultimately exacerbate inequality. Zoning regulations such as minimum lot sizes, parking requirements and building height restrictions, make it difficult for affordable housing to be built. Restrictive zoning laws make lower income families live in areas with limited opportunities and fewer resources, making it harder to live in areas with better housing, job opportunities and schools. 

Specifically, I suppose you are suggesting that the city incentivize and make permits available for more four-story and five-story structures with eight to ten apartments in each, and commercial / retail space on the ground floor, creating denser populations around core areas to increase demand for commercial enterprises in the core areas of the city.  And, additionally, create incentives for more new housing to be constructed in empty lots or replacing derelict structures in the older part of the city.  Small lots could be consolidated to create larger lots to allow for larger homes, or even modest multi-family courtyard apartments (buildings shaped as a U with common space surrounded by the three wings of the main structure, often with 16 to 24 apartments within, with doorways serving four-to-six apartments.) In addition, the city ought to cease all construction of roads, water supply, sewer lines or electrical infrastructure that would expand the footprint of the city.  All future growth in housing ought to be within the existing boundaries, and ought to be focused on multi-family units, including duplexes and quad-apartments. Sprawl and single homes on large lots are not economically sustainable, as property taxes from such areas cannot cover the long-term maintenance cost of the infrastructure built to support that sort of neighborhood. 

See the following resources for more information:
Confronting Inequalities in Springfield. 

Maps from around the Midwest showing housing zones from the 1930s and 1940s.

How Housing Policies Keep White Neighborhoods So White (and Black Neighborhoods So Black)