Policy Briefs

About ACSC Policy Briefs

ACSC policy briefs transform sustainability data into practical guidance for local governments, nonprofits, and community organizations. Each brief applies the Community Sustainability Index (CSI) and Community Cost Accounting (CCA) to explain a local problem, identify household burdens, and evaluate policy options based on community worth rather than institutional convenience.

These briefs follow a consistent structure:

  1. Define the problem and who it affects
  2. Present CSI/CCA burden and variance analysis
  3. Evaluate options
  4. Recommend workable solutions
  5. Show expected outcomes

They are written to support councils, coalitions, and co-ops as they make decisions that reduce burdens, retain value locally, and strengthen community stability across neighborhoods.

ACSC POLICY BRIEF #1 — High Point Housing & Homelessness

A CSI/CCA Evaluation of Burden, Neighborhood Impact, and a Housing Rehabilitation Employment Pathway

INTRODUCTION

This policy brief examines housing and homelessness in High Point by tracing how current policies distribute costs and burdens across households, and how those patterns affect long-term community stability.

High Point, NC faces two parallel challenges:

(1) visible homelessness without clear pathways to permanent housing and income, and

(2) deteriorating or underused residential structures, particularly in portions of Southside, a historic furniture-era neighborhood.

These conditions emerged in public view during community debate over relocating homeless shelter capacity into the Five Point Neighborhood. Residents resisted the move, arguing that concentration of homelessness would increase neighborhood burden without providing community benefit.

Although the relocation proposal did not proceed, the underlying issue remains unresolved: High Point lacks a cohesive policy bridge linking homelessness, workforce development, and housing rehabilitation.

This brief uses CSI/CCA analysis to show why simple relocation strategies fail—and why a Housing Rehabilitation Employment Pathway (HREP) may provide a sustainable alternative.

1. Problem Definition

Homelessness in High Point is currently managed as a shelter-and-services issue rather than as a housing-and-income issue. Housing shortages, rising rent, limited employment stability, and uneven neighborhood conditions create household burdens that shelters alone cannot resolve.

The shelter relocation conflict revealed deeper concerns:

  • Five Point residents resisted burden concentration,
  • the City lacked a distributed housing strategy,
  • homelessness remained disconnected from employment pathways, and
  • no policy mechanism exists to turn deteriorating housing stock into community assets.

From a CSI/CCA standpoint, relocation and capacity expansion alone produce:

  • burden displacement rather than burden removal,
  • no exit pathway from homelessness,
  • spatial variance between neighborhoods, and
  • no increase in usable housing stock.

2. CSI BURDEN & VARIANCE ANALYSIS

A. Transportation Burden

Homeless residents rely on transit and proximity to services. Relocation strategies risk increasing distance between shelters, jobs, and essential services.

B. Social Burden

Five Point residents expressed community-cohesion concerns—not prejudice. Their response reflects resistance to burden concentration in already-strained neighborhoods.

C. Housing Burden

Current policy expands shelter beds without expanding permanent housing units. Homelessness remains structurally unchanged.

D. Economic Burden

Without income or skill pathways, individuals remain dependent on public and nonprofit funding.

E. Neighborhood Variance

Five Point and similar neighborhoods already experience elevated burdens through aging infrastructure, lower investment, and stigma. Relocation widens variance rather than balancing it.

F. Value-to-Worth Gap

Institutional value increases through expanded shelter capacity, but neighborhood worth (safety, cohesion, equity) does not.

3. Why Relocation and Shelter Expansion Fail

From a CCA perspective, relocation-only models:

  • do not reduce homelessness,
  • do not produce affordable housing stock,
  • do not build income or skill capacity, and
  • do not lower long-term community cost.

They move the symptom, not the cause.

They improve administration, not outcomes.

They treat homelessness as a place problem rather than a burden problem.

4. Policy Alternative — HREP (Housing Rehabilitation Employment Pathway)

HREP reframes homelessness as an opportunity for community restoration rather than a liability.

HREP: a program that trains homeless or underemployed individuals to rehabilitate distressed houses, generating housing stock, income, skill, and neighborhood cohesion.

Initial observation in Southside reveals housing deterioration that may be suitable for rehabilitation. A full CSI housing inventory would be required to map abandoned and repairable units across High Point.

HREP could:

  • convert repairable homes into affordable housing,
  • train and pay shelter residents to perform the work,
  • distribute housing across multiple neighborhoods,
  • rebuild tax base and property value,
  • reduce stigma by increasing ownership and equity participation,
  • and shift homelessness into skill, wage, and stability pathways.

This is a burden-reduction model, not a relocation model.

5. Implementation Framework

The City could pilot HREP through five practical steps:

  1. Identify 3–5 properties via land bank, code registry, or private sale.
  2. Partner with shelters to build supervised rehab crews.
  3. Coordinate training tracks (carpentry, painting, roofing, energy retrofits).
  4. Create ownership pathways (co-op, lease-to-own, or equity share models).
  5. Distribute rehab units across neighborhoods to avoid burden clustering.

6. Expected Outcomes

A successful HREP pilot would be expected to:

  • reduce homelessness,
  • rehab aging units into productive stock,
  • increase earned income and skill development,
  • strengthen neighborhood cohesion,
  • prevent burden concentration,
  • lower long-term public cost, and
  • retain value within the community.

CONCLUSION

The Five Point relocation conflict signaled a need for strategy—not just shelter space.

High Point has an opportunity to lead with innovation:

connect housing rehabilitation with employment,

turn abandoned structures into community assets,

and treat homelessness as recoverable capacity rather than burden placement.

HREP is not a protest model; it is a pathway into housing, income, and neighborhood cohesion.

Coalition Recommendation

Based on CSI/CCA findings, ACSC recommends the creation of a community coalition to evaluate and pilot the Housing Rehabilitation Employment Pathway in High Point. This coalition would bring together city leadership, housing agencies, nonprofit partners, workforce trainers, neighborhood representatives, and philanthropic stakeholders to determine feasibility, develop partnerships, and pursue funding opportunities. ACSC stands ready to assist with analysis, planning, and advisory support.

Viewed through a household burden lens, housing and homelessness in High Point reflect not a single failure, but a set of interacting policy pressures that shape who absorbs risk, cost, and instability over time.