In Part 2 of One Room at a Time, Beth Silverman, co-founder and executive director of Lotus Campaign, helped reframe one of the biggest challenges in homelessness work: it’s not just about funding. It’s about whether the incentives across the system actually line up.
As Beth put it, “We’re solving at two extreme ends for solutions to homelessness.” On one side, there are emergency interventions meant to “stop the bleed.” On the other hand, there are long-term permanent housing solutions that can take years to develop. What’s missing are the practical, next-step options in the middle that actually help people move from instability to independence.
That’s where Beth sees the biggest opportunity. She pointed out that the country has been using “the same toolkit for decades when it comes to homelessness,” even though the structural drivers have changed. Today, housing supply and affordability play a much bigger role in homelessness than systems are built to address. If the problem has changed, the tools and incentives have to change too.
The System Doesn’t Always Reward What Actually Works
A major theme in the conversation was misalignment. Beth’s point was simple: even when people across government, nonprofits, and the private sector care about the same outcome, they’re not always given the incentives to get there.
“If we know that some of the biggest struggles for nonprofits are to help find their clients housing, what are the tools they have?” she asked. “Besides vouchers, right?” If nonprofits are expected to move people into housing, but don’t have enough flexible tools to do it, the system is already working against them.
The same goes for housing providers. Beth noted that one of the biggest risks landlords worry about is whether support will remain in place once someone is housed. “Are we properly funding case management and a network of support?” she asked.
She also challenged the way people talk about subsidies. “We assign positive and negative values to subsidies depending on what they’re being used for,” she said, pointing out that mortgage interest deductions, scholarships, and a parent co-signing a lease are all forms of support people readily accept in other settings. In housing, though, subsidies often become political flashpoints instead of practical tools.
Her broader point was that subsidies, incentives, and catalytic capital shouldn’t be treated as ideological problems. They should be seen for what they are: ways to remove roadblocks and help markets work better for more people.
Real Progress Happens When Sectors Actually Work Together
Beth pointed to communities making progress by taking a hard look at outdated zoning, conflicting codes, and overly burdensome regulations. In her view, the places moving forward are the ones willing to “start revising and reframing this to make common sense.” That kind of problem-solving matters because it gets in front of the issue and makes it easier to create and preserve housing in the first place.
That call for openness applies beyond institutions too. Beth argued that elected officials can’t lead change unless community members are willing to show some courage themselves. Real progress depends on people being willing to support solutions, take some risks, and move past the instinct to protect the status quo.
The takeaway from this conversation is that solving homelessness isn’t just about resources. It’s about whether the incentives across the system support the outcomes we say we want. If we want more people to access stable housing, then nonprofits need better tools, housing providers need proven risk mitigation, and policymakers need to remove barriers that make housing harder to build and preserve.
🎧Listen to the full conversation with Beth: padsplit.com/podcast.
📺 Or watch the episode on YouTube.
