Editorial partners.
Reporters and editors choose the stories they want to pursue, verify evidence and decide what to publish. Shared discussion supports their inquiry without determining its conclusions.
What can journalism do about homelessness?
SOLACE brings local journalists, people with lived experience and civic partners together to produce reporting that connects personal realities with structural causes, public decisions and possible responses.
About SOLACE
SOLACE builds sustained, collaborative reporting on homelessness.
Local journalists, people with lived experience and civic partners develop shared questions, contribute different forms of knowledge and return to the issue across three connected reporting waves.
Current phaseBuilding newsroom and community partnerships
The problemCoverage is often episodic, even when homelessness is continuous.
One crisis, personal story or policy announcement can attract attention while the conditions, responses and consequences connecting those moments remain difficult to see.
Why this mattersDaily reporting necessarily responds to immediate events. But when stories remain isolated, audiences may encounter suffering without seeing how housing, income, institutions and public decisions distribute risk over time.
SOLACE connects individual stories to sustained reporting on the policies, institutions and conditions that shape homelessness—while treating people with lived experience as contributors to the inquiry, not simply as examples of a wider problem.
The questionWhat becomes possible when coverage is connected across newsrooms, knowledge and time?
Can collaboration deepen context, widen the questions journalism asks and keep attention on responses and public commitments after the initial story?
What collaboration changesPeople with lived experience can identify overlooked questions and interpret how systems work in practice. Civic partners can explain policies, services and constraints. Journalists retain the authority and responsibility to investigate, verify and decide what to publish.
Collaboration expands the inquiry; it does not require a shared conclusion.
The answerThree connected reporting waves create a longer public conversation.
The collaboration first examines the conditions producing homelessness, then follows responses in practice and finally returns to promises, outcomes and unresolved questions.
How it worksEach wave begins with facilitated dialogue, continues through independent reporting and ends by bringing evidence and unanswered questions back to the group. What one newsroom learns can inform the wider inquiry without determining another newsroom’s coverage.
The result is not one campaign or coordinated editorial line, but a structure for more continuous, contextual and accountable journalism.
How SOLACE works
A shared inquiry.
Independent journalism.
Coverage that continues.
SOLACE is a Boulder-wide collaboration for reporting on homelessness over time. Journalists, people with lived experience and civic partners bring different knowledge to a shared inquiry, while newsrooms retain full editorial independence.
The work moves through three connected waves. Each begins with a facilitated session, continues through independent reporting and returns evidence, contradictions and unanswered questions to the group. The next wave starts from what the previous one made visible.
Essential knowledge.
Contributors identify overlooked questions and explain how policies and services work in everyday life. They may also create their own work through participatory workshops; becoming a public source is optional.
Systems in practice.
Organizations explain services, policies and gaps. Their claims and responses remain open to independent scrutiny.
A civic conversation.
Residents encounter the reporting as part of a wider public conversation. A separate panel study follows public understanding and engagement over time.
Three reporting waves · 2027
Understand conditions.
Follow responses.
Hold power accountable.
Taking place across 2027, the waves give the collaboration a common direction without prescribing stories or conclusions. Each begins with shared questions, develops through independent reporting and returns evidence to the group so the next wave can go further.
First wave · Conditions and pathwaysUnderstand the conditions.How do housing, life events, health, relationships and institutions interact over time?
The first wave examines homelessness as the outcome of interacting conditions and events. Housing costs, income and institutional rules shape risk, while job loss, illness, violence, relationship breakdown, disability, substance use and other life events may contribute differently in different lives. The task is to understand these pathways without turning complexity into individual blame.
The focus
Housing costs and supply; work, income and benefits; health and disability; violence and relationship loss; substance use; discrimination; discharge from institutions; access to services; public-space rules; and the timing and interaction of these factors.
The goal
Show how different pathways into and through homelessness emerge from the interaction between personal circumstances and unequal structural conditions—while keeping decision-making power, available resources and institutional responsibility visible.
Why it matters No single factor explains homelessness. Individual circumstances matter, but they do not operate outside housing markets, income, relationships, health systems, policy and unequal access to support. Good reporting examines how these levels interact rather than choosing between personal and structural explanations.
First-wave reporting briefWhat to report, ask and carry forward
Report through
Treat homelessness as a trajectory rather than a single transition. Ask what happened, what accumulated over time, what resources were available and how housing, income, health, relationships and institutional decisions interacted.
Build the source mix
Include people at different stages of homelessness, housing and labor expertise, frontline workers, public officials and the documents or data behind institutional claims.
Ask in every story
What decision, rule or resource shaped this outcome? Who carries the risk? Who is missing from the data or from the definition of the problem?
Possible directions
A pathway into homelessness; a policy x-ray; the rent–income threshold; a service-entry barrier; or a gap between the official count and lived reality.
Hand to the second wave
End with named actors, available levers, contested claims and unanswered questions about which responses could change the conditions you identified.
Second wave · Shared responseFollow responses in practice.What is being tried, who can reach it and what changes as a result?
The second wave follows concrete responses from intention to implementation. It asks how people encounter them, what evidence supports them and where capacity, eligibility or institutional design limits their reach.
The focus
Prevention, outreach, shelter, housing pathways, health and legal responses, community initiatives and cooperation—together with capacity, eligibility, cost, evidence and exclusions.
The goal
Build a grounded account of what responses can achieve, for whom and under which conditions—while showing where resources, responsibility and decision-making authority sit.
Why it matters Empathy can create concern for another person. Solidarity connects that concern to shared conditions, practical responsibility and the question of what a community is prepared to sustain.
Second-wave reporting briefExamine the response, not only the intention
Report through
Examine capacity, eligibility, wait times, funding, evidence of outcomes and unintended effects. Compare the scale of a response with the scale of the need.
Build the source mix
Speak with participants and people unable to access the response, implementers, critics, funders, frontline staff and officials responsible for continuation or expansion.
Ask in every story
What counts as success? Who qualifies, who is turned away and who decides? What must be true for the response to work beyond one compelling case?
Possible directions
Follow a route through the response system; examine a promising program; investigate a coordination gap; compare capacity with need; or document community-led action.
Hand to the third wave
Record the promise, responsible actor, budget or resource, baseline, expected outcome and timeframe. These become the accountability questions for the final wave.
Third wave · Civic accountabilityReturn to promises. Hold power accountable.Were commitments kept—and did they produce durable change?
The third wave returns to earlier promises, budgets and deadlines. It asks public officials, institutions and funded organizations to account for what they delivered, what they did not and what they will sustain beyond the project.
The focus
Named commitments, responsible decision-makers, budgets, implementation, policy decisions, measurable outcomes and the experiences of people reached—or excluded—by earlier responses.
The goal
Create a public record of promises kept, delayed or abandoned; establish who remains responsible; and document specific commitments that can be checked after the formal project ends.
Why it matters Institutions often receive attention when a policy is announced, not when its effects can be judged. Returning makes decision-makers answerable for implementation and keeps long-term commitments visible after the original news cycle has ended.
Third-wave reporting briefReturn to the evidence and the people
Report through
Compare promises with budgets, rules, implementation and outcomes. Separate activity, such as meetings or placements, from lasting changes in housing stability and access.
Build the source mix
Return to earlier contributors where appropriate, and include decision-makers, independent evaluators, frontline workers and people the response did not reach or may have harmed.
Ask in every story
What changed, for whom and according to whose evidence? What stalled? What was learned? Which commitment still lacks an owner, resource or deadline?
Possible directions
A public promise tracker; a before-and-after investigation; a return to an earlier system pathway; an accountability profile; or a story about what must continue.
Leave behind
A transparent record of commitments, evidence and unresolved questions—and an editorial agenda for coverage that continues after the formal project ends.
Reporting practice
A collaborative reporting initiativeReport with people,
Report with people,
not only about them.
Join a wider local effort connecting independent newsrooms, lived experience and civic knowledge. Together, the collaboration can deepen public understanding, sustain attention and contribute to meaningful local change. Your newsroom keeps editorial control. Participation does not require publication.
Local reporters, editors and student journalists interested in sustained homelessness coverage.
Three reporting waves across 2027, each beginning with a facilitated session. Preparation and optional check-ins are agreed with participating newsrooms.
Shared context, lived-experience knowledge and practical tools for ethical, structurally informed reporting.
Your assignments, sources, verification, conclusions, timing and final publication decisions.
Evidence & context
Homelessness is not one condition—or one population.
Homelessness concerns access to a home: somewhere adequate to live, with security, privacy and room for social relationships. Sleeping outside and staying in shelters are part of this experience. Broader frameworks also examine insecure, temporary and inadequate housing as forms of housing exclusion; these categories are not interchangeable in every dataset.
Which experiences appear in public data depends on the definition and institution doing the counting. A street count, a shelter record and a school system therefore describe different—and overlapping—parts of housing exclusion.
Many situations. A shared exclusion.
Homelessness encompasses diverse living situations and life histories. What connects them is exclusion from a safe, adequate and stable home—and often from rights, resources, recognition and belonging. Stigma can deepen that exclusion, but no single trait or pathway defines the people who experience it.
Different lives and pathways.
Age, family status, race, gender, disability, health, work and relationships shape people’s experiences differently. There is no typical biography of homelessness. Firsthand accounts reveal both individual circumstances and the institutions, exclusions and resources that shape them.
Every count has boundaries.
Time, geography, eligibility, method and contact with services determine who becomes visible. Ask what each dataset can establish, which forms of housing exclusion it omits—and who is missing from the count, and why.
DefinitionsWhat do we mean by homelessness?Three widely used frameworks reveal different forms of housing exclusion.
Definitions determine who becomes visible
There is no single homelessness number.
Different systems answer different questions. Any comparison should name the definition, geography and time period first.
PIT and shelter data
The PIT covers emergency shelter, transitional housing, Safe Havens and places not intended for habitation. Qualifying publicly or charity-funded motel stays can count; self-paid motel stays and temporary sharing after housing loss generally do not. This is narrower than the full set of HUD eligibility categories.
Useful for: sheltered and unsheltered system planningChildren and young people
The education definition covers children and youth without a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. It includes sharing housing because of housing loss or economic hardship, and motel stays where adequate alternatives are unavailable. School-year totals cannot be equated with one-night PIT counts.
Useful for: educational access and family instabilityA wider housing continuum
ETHOS distinguishes rooflessness, houselessness, insecure housing and inadequate housing across thirteen categories. It maps homelessness and wider housing exclusion; it is a conceptual framework, not a U.S. service-eligibility rule.
Useful for: asking what a narrow local measure leaves outCauses and pathwaysWhy does homelessness happen?Separate structural conditions, immediate pathways and consequences that can compound over time.
Understanding causes without reproducing stereotypes
Separate conditions, pathways and consequences.
An event reported after housing loss is not automatically its cause. The stronger question is how personal events interact with housing markets, income, institutions and unequal access to support.
What distributes risk?
Housing costs and supply, wages and benefits, job security, discrimination, disability, family violence, tenancy protections, access to care, institutional discharge practices and the strength of social safety nets all shape exposure to housing loss—and the resources available to prevent or end it.
What happened near the point of housing loss?
Job loss, eviction, violence at home, illness or discharge without housing may precipitate housing loss. Their consequences depend on income, available accommodation, relationships and institutional support.
What may be cause, consequence—or both?
Health conditions may interact with housing insecurity and barriers to care. Their presence in a survey does not establish when they arose or whether they caused housing loss. Avoid making a diagnosis the default explanation for homelessness.
Evidence checkCommon claims—what does the evidence show?Eight familiar assumptions, examined without replacing one simplification with another.
Evidence before assumption
Start with what the evidence supports.
Each correction below is deliberately stated before the familiar claim. The findings do not describe every person or every community; they show why stereotypes should become questions to investigate, not explanations to assume.
Evidence-led correctionHousing loss cannot be reduced to personal choice.
Personal events matter, but their consequences are shaped by housing costs, income, discrimination, tenancy protections and access to support. In the largest representative U.S. study since the 1990s, participants commonly described housing becoming unaffordable; many believed a subsidy or timely financial assistance could have prevented their homelessness.
A structural explanation does not deny individual differences. It asks why similar setbacks lead to housing loss for some people and not others.
Claim being tested: “Homelessness is mainly the result of bad personal choices.”Evidence-led correctionBehavioral health is neither universal nor a sufficient explanation.
In the California study, 35% reported regular illicit drug use; among those participants, 42% began using regularly only after first becoming homeless.
The relationship is bidirectional: behavioral health conditions can increase housing risk, while homelessness can create or intensify distress and substance use. A substance use disorder is a treatable health disorder—not simply an individual decision or failure of willpower.
Claim being tested: “Most people experiencing homelessness regularly use drugs.”Evidence-led correctionEmployment and homelessness can coexist.
An analysis covering 2011–2018 found employment during the observed year among 53% of people in shelters and 40% of people living unsheltered. Work may be part-time, intermittent or too poorly paid to secure housing.
Others cannot work because of disability, illness, age, caregiving, transportation barriers or the instability created by homelessness itself.
Claim being tested: “People experiencing homelessness do not work.”Evidence-led correctionVisible homelessness does not establish why someone is in a place.
In the California statewide study, nine in ten participants lost their last housing in California and 75% in the same county where they were interviewed.
These findings cannot be substituted for Boulder-specific evidence. Ask where a person last had stable housing, what ties they have locally and what the available local data actually measure.
Claim being tested: “People come from elsewhere because a community offers services.”Evidence-led correctionA declined offer is not the same as refusing housing.
Nearly all participants in the California study expressed interest in formal housing, yet fewer than half had received formal assistance. An offer may be unsafe, inaccessible, separate families or partners, exclude pets, impose unsuitable conditions or fail to provide a realistic route to stability.
Some people also avoid shelters or services because they fear assault, theft, noise or conflict, or because prior experiences made the setting feel unsafe. Ask what was offered, under which conditions and whether it matched the person’s needs. “Service resistant” is a conclusion, not a description.
Claim being tested: “People remain homeless because they refuse housing or help.”Evidence-led correctionA Point-in-Time count is a snapshot, not a complete total.
It measures sheltered and unsheltered homelessness on one night within a specific federal definition. It can miss people and excludes many forms of insecure or doubled-up housing; weather, shelter capacity and local procedures can also affect the result.
Use PIT alongside annual service data, school records, housing outcomes and lived experience. Ask who is missing from the count—and why. A change between two counts is not a complete measure of progress or failure.
Claim being tested: “The annual count tells us how many people are homeless.”Evidence-led correctionHeavy drinking is not a universal experience.
In California’s representative statewide study, 16% of participants reported heavy episodic drinking during their current episode of homelessness. The finding is consequential, but it does not support treating alcohol use as the experience—or cause—of homelessness for everyone.
Lifetime use, current use, harmful use and alcohol use disorder are different measures. Addiction is a treatable health disorder, not a moral failure or simply a matter of choosing differently. Report the definition, timeframe and denominator.
Claim being tested: “Most people experiencing homelessness drink heavily.”Evidence-led correctionHomelessness often increases exposure to violence.
In the California study, 38% of participants reported physical or sexual violence during their current episode of homelessness. Other U.S. research likewise documents high victimization. Visibility, distress or unfamiliar behavior should not be treated as evidence that a person poses a threat.
Ask who harmed whom, under what conditions and how a lack of private space, shelter rules, location and policing shape safety. Fear is a reporting lead, not a factual conclusion about dangerousness.
Claim being tested: “People experiencing homelessness are inherently dangerous.”Local evidence chapterExplore homelessness in BoulderOpen the county snapshot, city survey, services, policy, housing context and reporting sources.
Boulder County snapshot
One night. Three parts of the same count.
On 26 January 2026, the regional Point-in-Time count recorded 614 people experiencing homelessness in Boulder County. The total combines people staying in shelters or transitional housing with people living in places not intended for habitation.
A snapshot, not a complete total. The count captures one night within a specific federal definition. It does not include everyone without a safe or stable home.
people recorded within the PIT definition
MDHI PIT · 26 January 2026people in emergency shelter or transitional housing
Part of the same county countpeople in places not intended for habitation
Part of the same county countHomelessness in Boulder
Prosperity and precarity share the same landscape.
Boulder’s resources and high housing costs are unevenly experienced. Secure housing depends on income, accessible options, rights and the support available when circumstances change. The local evidence below moves from county snapshots to a focused city survey; each number keeps its geography, population and method attached.
Longitudinal dataTen years of one-night countsExplore Boulder County’s changing PIT snapshots and their methodological limits.
Boulder County · one-night snapshots
One-night counts across ten years.
These counts cover sheltered and unsheltered homelessness on one night, except the sheltered-only count in February 2021. It is a chronology of changing snapshots—not a census of everyone without a secure home or a clean trend line.
Read these as separate snapshots. MDHI advises against simple year-to-year trending. The patterned 2021 bar shows only sheltered people; its missing unsheltered component is unknown, not zero. A change in the bars alone cannot establish a change in overall homelessness. Read the methodology ↗
Select a year
Sheltered includes emergency shelter, transitional housing and Safe Haven programs. Unsheltered refers to places not intended for habitation, including vehicles. Neither category captures everyone without a secure home.
| Year | Sheltered | Unsheltered | Combined | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 471 | 129 | 600 | 2017 report ↗ |
| 2018 | 434 | 158 | 592 | 2018 report ↗ |
| 2019 | 570 | 53 | 623 | 2019 report ↗ |
| 2020 | 571 | 118 | 689 | 2020 report ↗ |
| 2021* | 464 | Not counted | Unavailable* | 2021 report ↗ |
| 2022 | 375 | 82 | 457 | 2022 report ↗ |
| 2023 | 596 | 243 | 839 | 2023 report ↗ |
| 2024 | 534 | 193 | 727 | 2024 report ↗ |
| 2025 | 503 | 190 | 693 | 2025 report ↗ |
| 2026 | 494 | 120 | 614 | 2026 report ↗ |
*2021: 464 sheltered people were counted on 25 February. No combined total can be calculated because the unsheltered count was not conducted. No value has been interpolated.
Focused local surveyWho appears in Boulder’s July 2026 data?Read the respondent profile without projecting it onto everyone experiencing homelessness.
Boulder · July 2026
A focused survey, not a demographic portrait.
On July 21, 2026, city staff and partners observed 88 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness; 37 answered at least part of the survey. The city release does not give the denominator for every percentage. These are respondent findings, not estimates for the whole city or county.
A reported duration of one year is not, on its own, HUD’s full definition of chronic homelessness. The place where someone first lost housing does not establish why they moved, their current community ties or whether they deserve support. This summer city count is separate from the January county series.
The separate summer series · 2023–2026
The city began this unsheltered-only count in July 2023. Observations and survey participation are different measures; weather, coverage and participation limit comparisons between years.
| Date | Observed | Survey participants | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27 July 2023 | 171 | 110 | City release ↗ |
| 25 July 2024 | 122 | 79 | City release ↗ |
| 22 July 2025 | 140 | 74 | City release ↗ |
| 21 July 2026 | 88 | 37 | City release ↗ |
Policy, services and accountability
Service contact is not the same as housing stability.
Boulder’s response spans prevention, coordinated entry, shelter, outreach, crisis response and housing. Each dataset describes a different part of that system. The central reporting question is how many people gain and retain stable housing—and who cannot reach, use or benefit from the available pathway.
Governance and plansWho sets policy—and what plan is in force?City strategy, county coordination, regional housing allocation and provider delivery.
A layered local system
No single agency controls Boulder’s homelessness response.
The City of Boulder sets municipal priorities, funds and contracts programs, develops housing and manages public space. Homeless Solutions for Boulder County (HSBC) coordinates a countywide system with Boulder County, Boulder, Longmont and service partners. Metro Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI) operates the regional Continuum of Care, HMIS and OneHome coordinated entry for housing resources. Providers deliver shelter, outreach, prevention, health care and housing support within these overlapping structures.
Strategy, contracts and local authority
The city’s 2017 strategy remains the foundation. Its 2025 update expands the framework and guides future resource allocation and program design; the city explicitly says it does not replace the 2017 strategy.
City strategy update ↗Countywide system coordination
HSBC, launched in October 2017, links government bodies and providers around coordinated access, housing and support. Its executive board oversees countywide outcomes and regional, county and municipal funding.
HSBC structure ↗Regional housing coordination and data
MDHI administers the seven-county Continuum of Care, HMIS and OneHome. Assessment can place a household in a dynamically prioritized community queue; limited resources mean it is not a conventional waitlist or a promise of housing.
OneHome policies ↗Access and delivery
Public agencies and nonprofits operate distinct routes for single adults, families, young people and survivors of violence. Eligibility, capacity and confidentiality requirements differ, so “the system” is experienced through several entry points.
Current service routes ↗The current roadmap
Two policy tracks, with different populations and measures.
Ending long episodes and rough sleeping
The update proposes more rapid resolution, affordable rehousing, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing and higher levels of care, together with continued public-space enforcement.
Preventing displacement and stabilizing housing
The proposed family response system uses a broader definition of housing instability and emphasizes standardized prevention, shared data, triage and expanded housing access.
Targets are not current results. These are the update’s modeled conditions for an “optimized” single-adult system. The document estimates an additional annual investment of about $11.28 million during 2026–2028 and about $13.38 million to sustain the added capacity in 2029. It describes these figures as preliminary estimates requiring refinement, rather than an accounting of appropriated funds.
Service systemHow the response pathway worksFrom prevention and access to immediate support, housing and durable outcomes.
This is a map of functions, not a guaranteed sequence. People may use several services, wait, disengage or find a route outside the system. Adult Coordinated Entry is not the universal entry point for families, children or survivors of violence. A referral should be assessed against actual availability, safety, accessibility and the person’s own priorities.
Keep housing.
Eviction prevention, rental assistance, mediation and family stabilization aim to stop a housing crisis from becoming literal homelessness.
Enter the system.
Coordinated Entry screens adults and connects them to diversion, navigation or housing-focused shelter. Assessment does not guarantee a bed or housing resource.
Reduce exposure and crisis.
Shelter, day services, outreach and behavioral-health response address immediate needs while people pursue longer-term options.
Move into housing.
Rental support, vouchers and permanent supportive housing offer different forms of housing access. Diversion or reunification should count as a durable outcome only when the destination is safe, suitable and sustained.
Ask what lasts.
Destination, housing retention, returns to homelessness, unmet demand and time spent waiting are necessary to interpret an “exit.”
Different situations use different entry points.
Adult Coordinated Entry through All Roads connects people to diversion, navigation, shelter and possible housing assessment.
EFAA and the Family Resource Network connect prevention, emergency support, temporary housing and stabilization.
Youth and young adults may need developmentally appropriate outreach, shelter and housing routes rather than the adult pathway alone.
SPAN provides confidential crisis, shelter, legal and counseling support outside ordinary public intake routes.
EPRAS and other prevention programs address eviction, rent arrears, mediation and legal assistance before literal homelessness occurs.
BHCRT/CIRT, emergency services and health providers respond to crisis; crisis contact is distinct from continuing treatment or housing.
Operational details and capacity can change. Confirm current eligibility, hours and availability through the linked provider information.
Firsthand knowledgeWhat people identify beyond the numbersLocal qualitative evidence about access, everyday constraints and housing stability.
Experience is evidence about the system.
The January 2025 HSBC evaluation included six focus groups with 48 currently or formerly unhoused adults in Boulder and Longmont. Participants identified unaffordable rents, upfront costs, transport and access to services as practical constraints. Their accounts help explain how apparently available resources can remain difficult to use.
The groups were recruited through service agencies using a convenience sample. They offer situated knowledge, not a representative account of everyone experiencing homelessness. People outside those networks may face further barriers.
The same evaluation compared 2022–2023 funding: crisis response rose 27%, and housing and support 17%. These are historical changes within the evaluated system, not the current city budget or evidence of effectiveness.
Read the evaluation, including its methods and focus-group findings ↗Current access information: All Roads adult services · Housing assistance by location and eligibility. Provider rules and capacity can change; these links describe access, not a promise of placement.
Local policyBoulder’s response, 2017–2026Housing pathways, public-space enforcement, funding and changing commitments.
Local policy · 2017—2026
Housing pathways expanded alongside public-space enforcement.
Both are central to Boulder’s response. Showing only one side would conceal the local political conflict.
Read the city’s strategy as a policy position to scrutinize. Reduced visibility in public space, service contact and secure housing are different outcomes. Ask whose experiences inform the assessment and who bears the consequences of enforcement.
Regional redesign
City strategy, HSBC, Coordinated Entry and Keep Families Housed.
Prevention, crisis response and enforcement
EPRAS launched in January, offering eviction-related legal help, mediation and rental assistance. CIRT and the SAMPS public-space program also began that year.
Housing retention
Building Home added peer support and stabilization for people moving into housing. Retention requires follow-up beyond the initial move.
Day services + housing
Day Services Center, added shelter beds, CARE and Bluebird supportive housing.
Strategy update
The updated strategy models ending unsheltered homelessness by 2028 through expanded rehousing and other measures. This depends on new resources and implementation; it is a goal, not a verified result.
Camping ban upheld
On May 14, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the state constitutional challenge in Feet Forward v. City of Boulder (2026 COA 37). That decision does not establish that enforcement improves housing outcomes.
Sources: City strategy and full plan · EPRAS program history · May 2026 court opinion.
Service continuity also matters: the city’s 2025 BHCRT report records that the alternative response option was paused on August 28, 2025, with a relaunch planned for the second half of 2026. A planned relaunch should not be read as confirmation that the service has resumed. Read the report ↗
Reporting questionsWhat no single dashboard can answerHidden forms, access, outcomes and the interaction between aid and enforcement.
Questions no single dashboard can answer
Counts, service use and outcomes must be read together.
These are not missing columns in one perfect dataset. They are distinct questions requiring school records, service data, housing outcomes, public-health evidence, budgets, court records and lived experience.
Who is outside the definition?
Temporary sharing after housing loss, self-paid motel stays and other insecure housing can fall outside PIT. Education and service records use different definitions and time windows; do not add their totals together.
Who reaches the system—and who is turned away?
Track Coordinated Entry, eligibility, wait times, shelter denials, accessibility, documentation barriers and people who stop seeking help.
What happens after service contact?
Distinguish assessment, referral, shelter use, reunification, housing placement and sustained housing. Each is a different outcome.
How do assistance and enforcement interact?
Examine housing investment, shelter capacity and behavioral-health access alongside citations, encampment removals and displacement between jurisdictions.
Housing affordabilityWhy do Boulder’s housing costs matter?Selected indicators show the risk environment—not the cause of any one person’s homelessness.
Costs as context, not diagnosis
A high-cost housing market changes the consequences of a setback.
When rent consumes more income and affordable options are scarce, job loss, illness, eviction or family conflict can become harder to absorb. These city-level indicators help describe that environment. They do not explain any individual pathway, and they should not be presented as a causal model of homelessness.
Monthly 2020–2024 city estimate, including contract rent and utilities. It does not show the lower end of the market or what is currently available.
Census 2020–2024 estimate: $1,039,500 for existing owner-occupied homes. This is not a current listing price, an entry-level price or a rent measure.
Homes reported at the end of 2025: 8.9% of city housing units, against a 15% goal. Income limits, vacancies and support provision determine who can actually access them.
Local sourcesBoulder reporting deskDashboards, policy documents and questions to test with firsthand knowledge.
Boulder reporting deskStart from the source.
Start from the source.
Keep the caveat attached.
Official figures describe different geographies, populations and moments. A one-night count, a service database and a city operations dashboard do not measure the same thing. Official interpretations should be tested against their methods and against the knowledge of people who use, cannot access or choose not to use the services.
About SOLACE · Solidarity & Journalism
Empathy can open attention. Solidarity asks what follows.
Media influence whose knowledge is recognized, whether homelessness is understood structurally and which responses appear legitimate or possible.
ConceptsFour connected practicesHow solidarity, solutions, collaboration and participation differ—and connect.
Four connected practicesDifferent ideas.
Different ideas.
Different jobs.
SOLACE combines four approaches that overlap but are not interchangeable. Keeping their roles clear makes the collaboration easier to understand—and easier to scrutinize.
Solidarity
Asks whose dignity and knowledge matter, which shared conditions are at stake and what journalistic action follows.
Solutions
Examines a response through evidence, insight, limits, exclusions and conditions for success.
Collaboration
Combines local knowledge, newsroom capacity and different forms of expertise without erasing autonomy.
Participation
Asks who can shape the questions, priorities and interpretation—not only who is visible or quoted.
Core comparisonEmpathy and solidarity togetherWhat each contributes, where each is limited and why journalism needs both.
What is this person experiencing?
Empathy brings another person’s experience close enough to be recognized. It can interrupt dehumanizing stereotypes, make suffering intelligible and create a reason to listen.
- It contributes
- Attention · recognition · emotional proximity
- Its limit alone
- Feeling may stop at sympathy, center the audience’s response or fade with the individual story.
How are we connected—and who can change the conditions?
Solidarity connects lived experience to structures, unequal power and shared civic responsibility. It asks who participates in defining the problem, who makes decisions and who remains accountable over time.
- It contributes
- Connection · responsibility · participation · follow-through
- Its limit alone
- Without attention to people, structural reporting can become abstract and use individual lives merely as evidence.
Feel with. Understand structurally. Report responsibly.
Empathy and solidarity are not competing frames. Empathy helps journalism recognize a person in their complexity; solidarity prevents that recognition from ending in pity or momentary concern.
- Humanize without demanding trauma.
- Explain systems without reducing people to examples.
- Share interpretive space without abandoning verification.
- Follow decisions, consequences and commitments.
In one lineEmpathy helps audiences recognize the human stakes. Solidarity connects that recognition to agency, structures, responsibility and continued public scrutiny.
Diagnostic toolFrom stigma to solidarityCheck whether a story moves beyond sympathy toward agency and shared conditions.
Representation checkHumanizing is necessary.
Humanizing is necessary.
It is not the endpoint.
This is a diagnostic continuum, not a score. A sympathetic story may still leave people passive, systems invisible and responsibility unresolved.
- StigmaThreat or burden
A person is reduced to deviance, danger or cost.
- SympathyPassive recipient
Concern is present, but agency and context remain weak.
- HumanizationComplex person
Relationships, knowledge, skills, decisions and ordinary life become visible.
- SolidarityAgency + shared conditions
Firsthand knowledge is connected to common conditions, public significance and sustained journalistic attention.
Story framingFour questions for reframing a storyConnect an episode to conditions, firsthand knowledge, public value and follow-through.
From recognition to journalistic action
Four questions for reframing a story.
The point is not to replace every individual story with an abstract systems story. It is to keep lived experience, shared conditions and journalistic follow-through in the same frame.
Connect the immediate event to housing, income, public policy, institutional practice and uneven exposure to risk.
People experiencing homelessness can interpret systems, identify blind spots and shape questions, not merely supply emotional testimony.
Locate the story in basic dignity, shared institutions and the consequences of decisions made in the public’s name.
Record commitments, resources, timelines, exclusions and outcomes so attention can become sustained scrutiny.
Reporting tools
Tools for the newsroom.
Begin with the step-by-step field guide, use the consent framework and cases for difficult decisions, then turn to the external guides for deeper reference.
Practical guideEthical reporting, step by stepMove through preparation, reporting, publication and follow-through when you need the detail.
Before reporting
Build the frame before seeking the quote.
Define the story, the people affected and the potential consequences before entering someone’s life.
Distinguish unsheltered homelessness, shelters, vehicles, temporary doubling-up and other forms of housing instability.
Example
A story about people sleeping in vehicles requires different questions from one about residents of an emergency shelter. Name the situation instead of treating every form of homelessness as the same.
Identify the housing conditions, policies, institutions and economic pressures surrounding the individual experience.
Example
If a story begins with an eviction, also examine rent, wages, benefit delays, tenant protections, shelter eligibility and the local supply of affordable housing.
Consider what participation may cost a source: time, privacy, safety, employment or access to services.
Example
Before interviewing someone at a service center, discuss whether identification could affect employment, family relationships or access to help—and agree on safer alternatives if needed.
Identify who holds firsthand, institutional, legal and data-based knowledge—and whose perspective is likely to be absent.
Example
Before reporting, list the people affected, decision-makers, frontline workers, independent experts and relevant records. Then ask which group is easiest to reach—and which is missing.
EthicsConsent as an ongoing processInformed, specific, revisitable and attentive to foreseeable consequences.
Ethical threshold
Discussion toolEthical decision labFour cases for working through identity, location, narrative and evidence.
Ethical decision lab
There is rarely one frictionless answer.
Use these cases before a reporting wave or in a newsroom discussion. The aim is to make competing responsibilities visible before the deadline does it for you.
IdentityA source agrees to use their full name—then becomes worried about employment before publication.
Clarify the concrete risk, what your outlet can change and what it cannot. Consider first name, pseudonym, anonymity or removing the source. Accuracy alone does not settle whether identification is necessary.
Consider: public interest · informed choice · permanence · newsroom policyLocationA photograph unintentionally reveals the location of an encampment.
Ask whether the location is essential evidence or merely visual detail. Cropping, changing the angle or omitting the image may prevent enforcement, harassment, violence or theft without weakening the story.
Consider: visual evidence · safety · location data · consentNarrativeAn editor wants a dramatic trauma-led opening that is not central to the investigation.
Examine what the detail explains. If it supplies emotion but not evidence, it may reduce a person to suffering and distract from the actual reporting. Offer an opening built around consequence, decision or contradiction.
Consider: relevance · dignity · narrative pressure · structural contextEvidenceA program presents an inspiring success story but will not disclose capacity, exclusions or outcomes.
Report the response without adopting its publicity frame. Ask who qualifies, who is turned away, how success is measured, what it costs and whether the model can operate at the scale of the need.
Consider: evidence · selection · scale · accountabilityThese scenarios synthesize principles from the USC Homelessness Reporting Guide, Street Sense Media’s Reporter’s Guide, Invisible People’s dignity-first guidance, the Global Center for Journalism & Trauma style guide and the SPJ Code of Ethics. They are prompts for editorial discussion, not universal rulings.
Guides for the newsroom
Practical resources, not a single rulebook.
Use SOLACE’s principles alongside established homelessness-specific, trauma-aware and professional ethics guidance.
External resourcesSix guides for ethical reportingHomelessness-specific, trauma-aware, framing and professional ethics resources.
Primary guide · Reporters Collective / USCHomelessness Reporting Guide
Core principles, sources, fieldwork, ground rules, ethics, language, data and journalist self-care.
Street Sense MediaA Journalist’s Guide to Reporting on HomelessnessLanguage, consent, compensation, sourcing and accountability.
Invisible PeopleMaking the Truth LouderConsent, context, do-no-harm and location safety.
Dart CenterTrauma-Informed Journalism Style GuideInterviewing, trauma language and newsroom decisions.
FrameWorks InstituteTalking About HomesEvidence-based guidance for structural framing.
Society of Professional JournalistsSPJ Code of EthicsTruth, independence, transparency and minimizing harm.
SOLACE synthesisWhat solidarity requires from journalismA one-page argument connecting participation, power, ethics and newsroom practice.
Ideas behind SOLACE
What solidarity requires from journalism.
Across this body of work, one question recurs: what changes when people experiencing homelessness are treated not only as sources, but as participants in the production of public knowledge?
Visibility is not the same as influence.
Coverage can make a person visible while leaving power untouched. Someone may be quoted, photographed or invited to tell a life story and still have no influence over the questions, context or public meaning of the piece. Participation begins where access alone ends: with dialogue, meaningful opportunities to shape priorities and clarity about which decisions remain editorial.
Yet participation is not automatically empowering. It may create new burdens, reproduce inequalities within a group or expose someone to consequences that were difficult to foresee. Ethical practice must therefore ask not only whether journalism minimizes harm, but whose harm is recognized, who defines it and who can refuse without penalty.
Voice is not authority.
Testimony can humanize an issue, but voice becomes consequential only when it can challenge assumptions, redirect questions or add knowledge that institutional sources leave outside the frame.
Power-sharing can strengthen truth-seeking.
Dialogue with unhoused journalists and contributors does not make verification optional. It widens the evidence base and makes journalism’s own standpoint, routines and blind spots available for scrutiny.
The person exceeds the category.
People use media to sustain relationships, protect identity, advocate for others and imagine life beyond the street. Homelessness may shape a life without exhausting it. Trauma should never become the price of being heard.
Facilitation carries responsibility.
Greater access does not by itself produce equality. Roles, consent, authorship, visibility, conflict and consequences require deliberate care. Empowerment for one person should not depend on exposing or silencing another.
In the newsroom
Turn the principle into practice.
- Before
Map the system and its decision-makers before choosing the personal story that will open the piece.
- During
Treat consent to speak, quote, identify, photograph and reveal a location as separate decisions.
- Frame
Connect lived knowledge to housing, work, health, policy, policing and institutional choices—without reducing a person to evidence of a structure.
- Publish
Preserve complexity. Do not turn suffering, gratitude or resilience into a moral test of who deserves public concern.
- Return
Share the work, respond to consequences and revisit public promises after attention has moved elsewhere.
Research
SOLACE is a journalism initiative accompanied by research.
The research examines how the collaboration works, when lived experience can meaningfully shape reporting and how public understanding changes over time. Contact Vojtěch Dvořák to learn more about the research.
Research designThree connected parts of the researchNewsroom collaboration, participation and public response over time.
How the work develops
Interviews and observation follow how journalists and partners develop questions, share knowledge and manage editorial independence, time and organizational constraints.
Who can shape the reporting
Interviews and workshops examine when people experiencing homelessness can influence questions and interpretation—not only appear as sources—and what risks, burdens or opportunities to refuse participation arise.
What changes over time
A repeated panel survey follows the same group over time, examining understanding of homelessness, solidarity, policy support and civic engagement. People are not assigned coverage to read, so changes cannot by themselves show that journalism caused them.
Research ethicsApproved by the CU Boulder IRB under Protocol 26-0364 and by the Masaryk University Research Ethics Committee under Ref. No. EKV-2026-164. Contacts: irbadmin@colorado.edu · ekv@muni.cz.
People
People behind SOLACE.
SOLACE is led across CU Boulder and Masaryk University. Journalists, people with lived experience, civic organizations and other local partners will be added here as the collaboration develops.
Vojtěch Dvořák
SOLACE lead · Masaryk University and CU BoulderHis work connects journalism, homelessness and democratic participation. Before academia, he led a low-threshold day centre; his research builds on long-term participatory work with people experiencing homelessness.
Patrick Ferrucci
CU Boulder supervisor · Department of JournalismProfessor and chair of Journalism at CU Boulder. His research examines how newsroom organizations, institutions and market structures shape journalistic practice.
Jakub Macek
Masaryk University supervisor · Department of Media Studies and JournalismAssociate professor at Masaryk University and supervisor of the project’s return phase in Brno.
Contact · Get involved
Start with the conversation that fits you.
Asking about SOLACE does not commit you or your organization. Research participation opportunities are announced separately through the relevant ethics and recruitment procedures.