Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How conflicting definitions of homelessness fail Latino families

Latino man sitting outside a motel room

One arm of the government defines homelessness narrowly, focusing on those living in shelters or on the streets. But another deparmtent also counts people living in doubled-up housing or motels as homeless.

Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Arzuaga is the housing policy analyst for the Latino Policy Forum.

The majority of Latinos in the United States experiencing homelessness are invisible. They aren’t living in shelters or on the streets but are instead “doubled up” — staying temporarily with friends or family due to economic hardship. This form of homelessness is the most common, yet it remains undercounted and, therefore, under-addressed, partly due to conflicting federal definitions of homelessness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines homelessness narrowly, focusing on those living in shelters or places not meant for habitation, such as the streets. This definition, while useful for some purposes, excludes many families and children who are technically homeless because they live in uncertain and sometimes dangerous housing situations but are not living on the streets. This narrow definition means that many of these “doubled up” families don’t qualify for the resources and critical housing support that HUD provides, leaving them to fend for themselves in precarious living situations.


In contrast, the Department of Education, under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, adopts a broader definition that includes students who are doubled up, living in motels or in other unstable housing situations. This definition is more reflective of the reality faced by over 1.2 million public school students during the 2021-22 school year, with 76 percent of these students experiencing doubled-up homelessness.

The conflicting definitions create significant disparities in how homelessness is understood and addressed. While the Department of Education recognizes and provides some support for students in doubled-up situations, HUD’s narrower definition excludes these families, leaving them without the crucial housing assistance they need. This discrepancy even extends to how homelessness is counted. For instance, HUD’s Point-in-Time count focuses solely on those living in shelters or on the streets. In contrast, the McKinney-Vento count by the Department of Education includes all children without a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, capturing those in doubled-up situations or motels. As a result, many homeless families are greatly undercounted and left out of policy decisions that determine federal housing funding.

Latino families are at high risk of facing housing instability and more likely to experience homelessness by doubling-up with other households due to economic challenges and systemic barriers. The situation becomes even more complicated for those who are undocumented. While both immigrant and migrant children and youth are eligible for McKinney-Vento services, such as free school meals, if they lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, accessing broader housing support is more complicated. HUD’s stricter immigration requirements often bar undocumented families from receiving the housing assistance they need.

This gap in resources has real consequences for Latinos. Homeless children face a 18 percentage point drop in their chances of graduating high school compared to the national average. Even when schools provide support through the McKinney-Vento Act — such as tutoring, school supplies and transportation — students living doubled-up still lack what they need most: stable housing because HUD doesn’t recognize their living situation as homelessness.

While it won’t solve housing insecurity overnight, aligning HUD’s and the Department of Education’s definitions of homelessness would be a step in the right direction for truly addressing the needs of doubled-up families, ensuring that everyone is seen and counted. By expanding our understanding of what homelessness can look like, we can begin to connect these overlooked families and children to the housing resources and stability they desperately need.

If you think you may have experience living doubled-up, please consider taking this anonymous survey.

Read More

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less