The homelessness advocacy sector has a fatal messaging research problem: we keep testing what makes us feel good while the opposition tests what actually wins.
What we’re researching:
“No matter our race, gender or income, we all need a safe place to sleep.”
What the opposition is saying:
“Jail is a safer place to sleep than a sidewalk—criminalization is compassionate.”
See the problem? Our message about “safe places to sleep” literally reinforces their argument that jail provides safety.
We’re Not Studying the Actual Fight
While advocacy groups test whether “housing is dignity” resonates, Cicero Institute is deploying:
- “Encampments are covered in feces and needles”
- “We spent billions on housing and it got worse”
- “Housing First has a 50% higher death rate”
- “Free housing enables deadly drug addiction”
- “$1 million per unit while working families struggle”
We have zero research on what counters these messages.
We don’t know what persuadable voters find compelling when they hear both sides. We’ve never tested our frames against their frames. We’re testing our messages in a vacuum while they’re winning the actual debate.
The Pattern
We research: “Housing that people can afford, paired with supportive services”
They say: “Why should drug addicts get free housing when I work and can’t afford rent?”
Result: Support for housing drops while support for criminalization and forced treatment grows.
We research: Messages about community and shared values
They say: “Housing homeless people attracts more homeless people and tanks your property values”
Result: Growing NIMBY opposition to any housing solutions
We research: “Homelessness can happen to anyone”
They say: “75% have mental illness and addiction—they need treatment not housing”
Result: Growing public support for mandatory treatment and criminalization.
What We Should Be Researching
Not: “Does ‘safe place to sleep’ messaging resonate?”
But: “When they say jail is safer than sidewalks, what response actually works?”
Not: “How do we get people to care about homeless individuals?”
But: “What messages move persuadable voters away from criminalization when they’re being hit with fear-based attacks?”
Not: “How do we message supportive services?”
But: “How do we counter ‘we spent billions and homelessness got worse’?”
Not: “How do we message about community values?”
But: “What self-benefit frames work when they’re attacking with property values and safety threats?”
We Created Our Own Problem
Support for forced treatment is growing partly because we refused to message that Housing First includes treatment.
For years, we talked about “housing” without emphasizing the “supportive services” part. We let the opposition define Housing First as “free apartments with no strings attached.”
Now we’re living with those consequences. The opposition filled the vacuum we created, and now they own the “treatment” narrative.
Every time we talk about supportive housing, we must mention treatment and services. Not as afterthoughts—as central components.
The Urgency
260+ camping bans since June 2024. Housing First is being dismantled federally. Criminalization is becoming a consensus.
The opposition researched what fear messages work, then deployed them.
We researched what values we hold, then lost.
What Needs to Change
- Map their talking points systematically – Stop guessing what we’re fighting against
- Test counter-messages against their attacks – Not in isolation, in combat conditions
- Find out what actually moves persuadable voters – When they hear both sides, not just ours
- Develop rapid-response capacity – New attacks are emerging constantly
The Bottom Line
We’re losing because we’re researching the wrong things.
We need to:
- Research what they’re actually saying that’s working
- Test what counters their most effective attacks
- Study the battlefield we’re actually fighting on
You can’t win a war you’re not studying.
The question: How much longer do we keep testing messages about our values while losing the fight for housing?