Introduction

Although Washtenaw County includes a range of urban and suburban communities, housing access pressures have been especially evident in Ann Arbor, where demand for rental housing has grown steadily, while the supply of affordable units has remained limited. Rising rents and constrained housing options have increased the risk of displacement for lower-income residents and placed sustained pressure on local shelter and supportive service providers (“Annual Report,” 2014–2025; VanderMolen, 2024).

Ann Arbor’s housing market reflects a set of dynamics that distinguish it from other parts of the county. As a primary economic and educational center, the city attracts a large student population, a transient workforce, and higher- income households, all of which contribute to elevated demand for rental housing. At the same time, the development of affordable housing has lagged behind demand, narrowing the range of options available to residents with fixed or low incomes. These conditions have contributed to a concentration of homelessness services within the city, alongside an increasing number of individuals seeking assistance there (“Annual Report,” 2014–2025).

Within this housing environment, homelessness response systems in Washtenaw County have operated with relatively fixed capacity. Emergency shelter beds, transitional housing placements, and supportive services have remained limited in scale, making access to assistance sensitive to changes in funding availability (“Annual Report,” 2014–2025). Therefore, local service providers have had to balance demand with fluctuating resources, affecting who can access services and how long individuals remain in shelter. Periods of expanded funding have altered this balance, while reductions in support have constrained capacity and increased unmet need.

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a period during which these dynamics became particularly visible. Emergency state and federal interventions temporarily expanded housing stabilization programs and altered patterns of shelter use (“2021 Annual Report,” 2021; Homelessness in Michigan down 19 Percent in 2020 according to New Report, 2021; Stephenson et al., 2021). As many of these measures were later reduced or discontinued, local homelessness response systems again faced the constraints imposed by limited housing supply and fixed service capacity (“Annual Report,” 2023–2024). Examining these shifts over time provides an opportunity to better understand how housing market pressures and funding conditions interact to shape homelessness outcomes in Ann Arbor and the surrounding county.

Housing Affordability and Shelter Capacity Before COVID (2014–2019)

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, housing affordability and shelter capacity in Washtenaw County were already under strain. Annual reports from the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County (SAWC) document a steady decline in the number of individuals served despite persistent and growing need. Between 2014 and 2019, the total number of clients assisted decreased by more than 33%, from 1,495 to 1,002, as shelter capacity stagnated and overflow programs struggled to adapt to rising demand (“Annual Report,” 2014–2019). By 2018, administrative records indicated a waitlist of 762 individuals, and nearly half of shelter clients (48%) were living with a diagnosed mental illness, underscoring the increasing complexity of need even before the pandemic (“2019 Annual Report,” 2019).

Housing costs in Ann Arbor further compounded these pressures. Rental prices for a one-bedroom unit consistently exceeded $1,000 per month, making stable housing unaffordable for many low- and moderate-income residents. In 2019, Washtenaw County recorded the highest median gross rent in Southeast Michigan at $1,114, while Michigan’s minimum wage remained at $10 per hour (Detroit Rent | Drawing Detroit, 2021). Case managers and intake staff at local shelters consistently reported that many new clients entered the system without income and were often referred to communities outside Ann Arbor, where rents were lower. Together, rising rents, limited affordable housing development, and fixed shelter capacity contributed to persistent homelessness prior to the pandemic.

COVID-Era Funding Expansion and Temporary Stabilization (2020–2021)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, homelessness declined across Michigan, with a reported 21% reduction between 2019 and 2021. This decrease has been attributed primarily to two factors: a sharp decline in evictions due to the federal eviction moratorium, a temporary policy that halted evictions during COVID-19, and the expansion of rental assistance through emergency government funding. Eviction rates fell by approximately 44% during this period, and the COVID Emergency Rental Assistance program distributed $1.1 billion statewide over 21 months, assisting more than 256,000 residents with rent and utility payments (White, 2022).

Local service providers experienced similar shifts. Emergency COVID-era funding nearly doubled SAWC’s government support, increasing from approximately $1.07 million in 2019 to $2.36 million in 2021 (“2020 Annual Report,” 2020; “2021 Annual Report,” 2021). At the same time, Washtenaw County received more than $71 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, a portion of which was allocated to housing stabilization and direct assistance. These investments supported the launch of the Housing Crisis Stabilization Program, expanded behavioral health funding, and enabled shelter upgrades to comply with public health protocols (“2022 Annual Report,” 2022). As a result, average shelter stays declined from 117 days in 2019 to 69 days in 2020 and 92 days in 2021, reflecting improved access to housing and support services during this period (“Annual Report,” 2019–2021).

Post-COVID Rollback and Renewed Constraints (2022–2025)

Following the expiration of pandemic-era protections and assistance programs, housing pressures in Washtenaw County intensified. Wages failed to keep pace with rising housing costs, even as demand for rental units increased. Although Michigan’s minimum wage rose to $12.48 per hour by 2025, the National Low Income Housing Coalition estimates that renters must work the equivalent of 1.6 full-time jobs to afford a one-bedroom apartment and 2.5 full-time jobs to afford a two-bedroom unit in Ann Arbor, the most expensive rental market in the state. In 2025, a wage of $30.90 per hour was required to afford a two-bedroom apartment renting for approximately $1,607 per month (Homelessness Facts, n.d.; Out of Reach: Michigan | National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2023).

At the same time, government funding for homelessness services declined toward pre-pandemic levels. Between 2022 and 2024, SAWC’s government support averaged approximately $1.9 million annually, and many emergency assistance programs were phased out without replacement. These reductions coincided with longer shelter stays, increased unmet need, and rising demand. Between 2022 and 2024, the duration of shelter stays nearly doubled, overall shelter demand increased by 19%, and the number of women seeking shelter doubled (“Annual Report,” 2022–2024). In July of 2024, the waitlist for Michigan’s Housing Choice Voucher program, previously known as Section 8, was frozen. This waitlist remains frozen, leaving around 60,000 individuals without housing assistance. Furthermore, the state has stopped receiving new applications due to funding shortages (Jordyn Hermani, 2025). This disparity reflects the growing gaps between need and available resources (Jordyn Hermani, 2025). Housing shortages were further illustrated by a 2024 affordable housing lottery that attracted more than 7,000 applicants for just 20 units, underscoring the acute shortage and the difficulty of transitioning out of homelessness (Cooper, 2024). In addition, the report shows that eviction filings increased after COVID-19 eviction protections ended, reaching 75% of pre-pandemic levels by 2022 (Eisenberg & Brantley, 2022).

More recently, renewed investment has supported modest improvements in housing outcomes. In 2025, government funding for SAWC increased to $2.93 million, and the average time residential clients required to secure housing declined from 175 days in 2024 to 136 days in 2025 (“Annual Report,” 2024–2025). New initiatives have also emerged, including the opening of Alpha House East, a temporary housing facility for families experiencing homelessness developed through a partnership between Trinity Health Ann Arbor and the Interfaith Hospitality Network. Funded by state and county grants, the facility provides 30 family units designed to support transitions to long-term housing (Lozon, 2025).

In addition, Ann Arbor city officials have proposed developing pallet housing villages as a rapid-response strategy to address rising homelessness. These villages would consist of small, durable units designed for longer-term use and could be deployed quickly in response to housing shortages. Unlike temporary housing options, pallet homes are designed to last up to 15 years and can be assembled quickly. The city plans to build between 25 and 50 units, depending on available funding and site location, although no final decisions have been made (Stanton, 2025). As demonstrated during the COVID-19 period, sustained financial investment will be critical to ensuring that such interventions meaningfully support individuals and families experiencing housing insecurity.

Discussion

Taken together, the periods examined in this report demonstrate how homelessness outcomes in Washtenaw County, and particularly in Ann Arbor, have been shaped by the interaction between housing market pressures and the stability of public funding. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, rising rental costs, limited affordable housing development, and fixed shelter capacity contributed to persistent homelessness despite relatively stable demand. These conditions established a baseline under which local homelessness response systems operated under continuous constraint.

Overall, the example of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County highlights homelessness as a system-level outcome shaped by housing markets and funding structures rather than as an episodic crisis. While short-term funding expansions can mitigate the immediate effects of housing instability, sustained reductions in homelessness are unlikely without consistent investment in affordable housing and prevention infrastructure. As communities continue to navigate post- pandemic housing challenges, this case illustrates both the potential and the limitations of funding-driven responses to homelessness.