Trapped in Transition: The State of Supportive Housing for Former Foster Youth in New York City

For most young adults who get their first apartment, newfound independence comes with a strong foundation of family support—a safety net that offers guidance, advocacy, and a buffer against life’s inevitable setbacks. This support is vital, helping them to navigate challenges and secure the opportunities they deserve. In stark contrast, annually, about 500 young people aging out of foster care often find themselves cut off from such support at a critical juncture, usually their eighteenth birthday, after which they must embark on a difficult journey without the resources or backing their peers typically receive from their families. Each year, a portion of these young people are moved into so-called “supportive housing” environments that are often anything but supportive, leaving them to face adult responsibilities without resources and safeguards they deserve and need.

And yet, foster youth aren’t without guardianship: they are wards of the state that administers their foster programs. And in New York, which has one of the largest foster care systems in the country, that guardian has been derelict in its responsibilities. In this report, we hear directly from New York City former foster youth, ranging in age from 18 to 25, about the ways they’ve been left to fend for themselves as they become ineligible for the very services they need most. “Aging out,” as we’ll see, doesn’t mean having outgrown the necessity of support—do we expect other 18-year-olds to magically, and instantly, acquire adequate employment, housing, and financial independence along with their right to vote? Rather, for these youth, “aging out” merely describes having passed arbitrary thresholds of qualification for programs that were rarely sufficient to begin with. From their stories, we can begin to delineate priorities for reforming the system, and thereby make it the guardian for current and future foster youth that it should have been for us.

Below, you’ll learn about the realities of “supportive” housing, including the following:

• Supportive housing programs are failing the young people they are meant to protect.
• Former foster youth have been dismissed, belittled, and left to navigate severe safety issues and deteriorating buildings.
• Substandard maintenance, including power outages and brown water, has left youth battling trauma in places meant to provide stability.
• Youth in supportive housing feel invisible, dealing with constant neglect from the very staff meant to support their transition to independent adulthood.
• Young people are forced to choose between living in dangerous, filthy conditions or risking homelessness, all while being told they should just be “grateful” for having a roof over their heads.

And finally, the report will discuss excellent first steps for policy reform, including the following measures:

• Bridge the Funding Gap: Aligning financial commitments with market rates can secure safe and clean housing for youth transitioning out of foster care.
• Give Youth a Voice: Appointing a dedicated ombudsman and creating youth councils can ensure that foster youth’s concerns are heard and acted upon.
• Accountability in Action: Regular inspections, formal complaint processes, and an annual report to the City Council would be important practices for ensuring that supportive housing standards are maintained and improved.
• Build a Supportive Future: Prioritizing foster youth for set-aside affordable housing units and requiring trauma-informed care training for staff can transform the supportive housing experience.

Setting the Scene: Why Interview Former Foster Youth?

This report seeks to shed light on an issue that often exists in the shadows—the conditions faced by young adults who age out of foster care and live in supportive housing—by hearing from the young people who actually experience these living arrangements. The original research presented here is grounded in survey data from former foster youth, offering an in-depth look at the significant challenges they face in one of the three major transitional options that they are offered when they leave care. No survey has ever been conducted on this particular issue, and very few surveys have involved foster youth themselves at all. Supportive housing programs have never given youth a seat at the table, nor have they considered our voices when it comes to choosing where we want to live or ensuring the buildings and neighborhoods we are placed in make us feel safe. The research you’re about to read intervenes in that lack of data by bringing together the testimonies of young people in a way that has never been done before, putting their lived experiences front and center in the conversation about policy.

In the 1970s, supportive housing was created in response to the homelessness crisis in New York City for the municipality’s most vulnerable populations. Owned and operated by nonprofit organizations with oversight from city, state, and federal agencies, supportive housing was intended to stabilize tenants at risk of housing instability through social and educational services. However, it wasn’t until 2005 that any supportive housing specifically for youth aging out of foster care was developed, with the NY/NY III initiative creating only 100 scattered-site units and 100 congregate units for this population. Scattered-site housing consists of individual apartments integrated into the community, offering more independence, while congregate housing involves multiple units within a single building or complex, providing a structured, communal living environment with on-site support services.

Despite there being over 40,000 supportive housing units in New York City, very few are dedicated to the approximately 500 foster youth aging out of the system each year.

While supportive housing was originally established to combat homelessness and aid New York City’s most vulnerable populations, the system has struggled to meet the unique needs of youth aging out of foster care—a demographic that only began receiving attention with the NY/NY III initiative in 2005. This initiative imposed age limits on housing and essentially replicated the same housing supports designed for adults with mental health needs, known as NYC 15/15.  In 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced New York City’s commitment to developing 15,000 units of supportive housing over the next fifteen years. NYC 15/15 serves a whole swath of at-risk young adults, including but not exclusively youth who are aging out, and only has 169 total units for this population. Despite there being over 40,000 supportive housing units in New York City, very few are dedicated to the approximately 500 foster youth aging out of the system each year.

In congregate supportive housing, the nonprofit owns the building and is responsible for repairs and property management, allowing for some degree of accountability. However, in the scattered-site model, nonprofits rent from for-profit landlords over whom they have little to no control, often resulting in significant delays in addressing issues, or outright neglect of those issues. This leaves foster youth to navigate their formative years in dilapidated buildings plagued by broken plumbing, power outages, theft, pest infestations, and lack of heating. In this way, youth aged 18 to 25 often find themselves battling severe issues alone when placed in buildings and neighborhoods they did not choose, the result of a glaring discrepancy between the intended purpose of supportive housing and its execution. This dynamic often leaves youth feeling trapped in a catch-22: they are forced to accept any supportive housing placement they can get or run the risk of couch surfing or homelessness, since transitional housing for this population is so scarce as it is. 

As the lead researcher on this project, the concept of aging out of foster care and living in supportive housing is not foreign to me: I spent four years living in supportive housing myself. I’ve often questioned who decides the buildings, zip codes, and boroughs where other youth and I are placed. Have others faced the same struggles with unsafe and neglected living conditions as I have? Youth in these housing programs are cycled in and out, with new youth who are in need of housing moving into units that still have unresolved issues as soon as someone “graduates” from the housing program at 26, due to the high demand for housing. In my very first supportive housing apartment, I was relocated from my kin placement in Queens to Crown Heights in Brooklyn, into a building with a roommate who shared horror stories about the rat infestation in our apartment. After countless complaints to the staff that oversees the building placement and wellness of the youth, we had to beg the landlord to patch up holes that the rats used to invade our space and eat our groceries, an infestation so virulent it made us too scared, ashamed, and disgusted to enter and use the kitchen. The roach infestations were equally horrendous, and recurred frequently.

We are not just passive recipients of services: we are active participants, whose insights can lead to meaningful improvements in the system and inform the next generation’s experience of these housing systems.

Experience has taught me that those closest to the problem are often closest to the solution and should be recognized as experts. As young adults entering these spaces, our feedback is critical. We are not just passive recipients of services: we are active participants, whose insights can lead to meaningful improvements in the system and inform the next generation’s experience of these housing systems. With this in mind, I set out to shift the paradigm and drive policy change by surveying foster youth’s experiences and working collaboratively to develop policy solutions that address the issues in supportive housing. By genuinely engaging with foster youth and incorporating their insights, we can create support systems that not only meet their needs but also empower them to succeed.

Methodology

To understand foster youths’ experiences in New York City’s supportive housing programs, including NY/NY III and NYC 15/15, I conducted a survey focusing on the locations and conditions of respondents’ supportive housing placements and gathered feedback on their general experiences. This survey gathered data from individuals aged 18 to 29 in New York City who have experienced placements in supportive housing, whether they are currently in or have recently graduated from the program. It is important to note that NYC 15/15 does not have a graduation age for youth, as it is a permanent supportive housing program, whereas NY/NY III typically has a graduation age of 26. The survey was conducted online or through phone interviews (for those who requested it), with youth being compensated for their participation. The first twenty-five participants were compensated directly, and the remaining participants were entered into a raffle.

In the end, sixty-two youth responded to the survey. Of those, twenty-six youth (37.7 percent) were placed in congregate placements, and forty-three youth (62.3 percent) were in scattered-site placements; moreover, 24.6 percent (seventeen youth) were in NYC 15/15, while 75.4 percent (fifty-two youth) were in NY/NY III. Moreover, many of these young people shared the same experiences despite being in different programs under the umbrella of supportive housing. While a total of sixty-two youth responded to the survey, we received ratings for seventy-one supportive housing placements, because some youth had multiple placements.

Demographic Profile of Survey Participants

The survey included a diverse group of young adults ages 18 to 29. Youth aged 24 (24 percent) and 21 (21 percent) made up about 50 percent of the participant responses. Participants entered foster care between the ages of 2 and 17 years old, and transitioned to supportive housing mostly between the ages of 18 and 24 years old. The survey attempted to capture experiences during the critical period after youth age out of care and matriculate into supportive housing.

Findings

Locations and Building Quality

Many of the supportive housing units assigned to respondents were located in neighborhoods with limited resources, higher crime rates, and inadequate building maintenance. Living in poorly maintained facilities not only exposes youth to health and safety risks but also contributes to emotional and psychological stress, reinforcing feelings of neglect, low self-worth, and anxiety, and compounding the trauma many have already experienced in foster care. Sixty percent of the units were located in Brooklyn, 27 percent in the Bronx, and a small proportion of units were located in Manhattan and Queens. Experts and executive directors from foster care agencies reported in conversations with the author that these placements are deliberately located in segregated and marginalized communities.

Eight youth reported living in the Bronx, specifically in zip code 10456. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Opportunity Atlas, which predicts the potential outcomes for children growing up in specific areas, the average individual income for those raised in zip code 10456 is $25,000 by the age of 35. This places the zip code in the twentieth percentile, meaning that in comparison to 100 zip codes across the United States, eighty of them have higher household incomes. Additionally, the poverty rate in zip code 10456 from 2012 to 2016 was 37 percent, placing it in the ninety-second percentile, indicating that it had a higher poverty rate than 92 percent of other neighborhoods in the United States. The second-highest zip code where respondents lived in the Bronx was 10457, which has a projected individual income level of $21,000 by age 35, placing it in the seventh percentile. The poverty rate in zip code 10457 was 38 percent, ranking it in the ninety-third percentile. 

Nine youth reported living in Brooklyn’s zip code 11213, where the median household income is $22,000. This places the area in the twelfth percentile, meaning that 88 percent of zip codes in the United States have higher incomes. The poverty rate in this area is 23 percent, which ranks it in the seventy-sixth percentile, indicating that it has a higher poverty rate than 76 percent of neighborhoods across the country. Additionally, eight youth lived in Brooklyn’s zip code 11215, where the median income is slightly higher at $25,000, placing it in the twenty-second percentile—meaning that 78 percent of zip codes have higher incomes. The poverty rate in this area is also 23 percent, similar to 11213, and places it in the seventy-sixth percentile for poverty.

For the youth living in Manhattan’s zip code 10026, the individual income is $22,000, placing it on par with Brooklyn’s 11213 in terms of low income, but the poverty rate is significantly higher at 42 percent. This places zip code 10026 in the ninety-fifth percentile for poverty, meaning that it has a higher poverty rate than 95 percent of U.S. zip codes, highlighting the extreme economic hardship in this area.

These data reflect a troubling trend: youth in supportive housing are disproportionately placed in neighborhoods that offer few pathways to success. The correlation between low income prospects and high poverty rates in these zip codes further exacerbates the challenges faced by young people transitioning out of foster care. With poverty rates far exceeding national averages and income projections that trap them in a cycle of hardship, these young people are being set up for continued struggle. To truly support youth aging out of foster care, it is critical to rethink how and where supportive housing is provided, ensuring that it promotes stability, growth, and long-term success.

“The rodents were living in my clothes.”

On top of the troubling economic data, the lived experiences of youth in supportive housing tell an even more alarming story about the conditions they endure daily. When asked to rate their housing quality, many described their surroundings as far below acceptable standards, with severe vermin infestations and lack of maintenance being common complaints. This first-hand feedback vividly illustrates how the socio-economic struggles previously outlined translate into real-life hardships, compounding the already significant challenges faced by youth transitioning out of foster care.  When youth were asked, “How would you rate the overall quality of your supportive housing?” they reported that the living conditions were largely substandard, with one-fourth of the participants rating their housing quality as “terrible” (eighteen youth) and 43 percent as “less than average.” Common complaints included severe vermin infestations, with 58 percent (forty-one youth) of youth reporting roaches and 46 percent (thirty-three youth) encountering rats. One youth vividly described the situation: “Roaches and rodents—the foundation of the apartment isn’t good, there are cracks that the rats come in… the heater doesn’t work, not consistent heat and I needed to call 311 at times;” and, “The rodents were living in my clothes.” 

Additionally, many youth felt that these unsafe environments extended beyond the building itself into their surrounding neighborhoods, affecting their ability to carry out basic tasks such as receiving deliveries. “I should just be able to buy UberEATS and, like, not have to worry about people in my surrounding area messing around with the delivery person and not getting my food,” one youth commented, highlighting how even small, every-day activities were affected by the conditions of the neighborhood. All of the above foster a heightened and generalized sense of insecurity among the youth living in these conditions, further compounding the trauma of an already difficult transition to independent living.

Maintenance Issues

In the survey responses collected, maintenance issues were a prominent concern among the residents. One of the most pervasive issues reported by youth living in supportive housing was the poor condition of their units and the lack of adequate maintenance. Rodents, roaches, and general filth were common complaints, along with the emotional and psychological toll these conditions took on the residents. Imagine stepping into the shoes of young residents who, instead of worrying about exams or weekend plans, are navigating hallways strewn with human waste and dodging rodents in their living spaces.

“They gave us heaters, but every time my roommate and I plugged them in at the same time, the power would go out, so we had to freeze in the winter or take shifts being warm.”

Thirty-one percent (twenty-two youth) reported frequently experiencing a lack of hot water, 37 percent (twenty-six youth) reported facing regular power outages, and 26.3 percent (thirty-five youth) reported dealing with mold in their unit. Residents provided harrowing descriptions of their living conditions: “Other tenants peeing and defecating in the hallways. I saw mice running in and out of the trash that were supposed to be taken care of!” And: “My roommate said she killed mice before, so she normalized it. Roaches coming out of everywhere. I didn’t feel comfortable.” One youth vividly described the fear and danger they faced during power outages: “Every time there was a power outage, the staff informed us to go to the basement of the building, which looked like a scary dungeon and often had the lights off, to flip the breaker. It was super unsafe and scary.” One youth stated, “They gave us heaters, but every time my roommate and I plugged them in at the same time, the power would go out, so we had to freeze in the winter or take shifts being warm.” Another youth shared that their apartment was always freezing several winters in a row: “There were times when I had to wear several layers of clothing in addition to my goose down blanket in order to stay somewhat warm in my apartment for months.”

The frustrations extended beyond heating issues. One young person explained how their calls for maintenance went unheeded:

I told the caseworkers about the issue. They let me know that an exterminator was supposed to come, so I stayed home all day. They gave me a time frame, but the exterminator never came. The superintendent they called never showed up either. He just gave me mouse traps, rat poisoning, or filled the holes with Brillo pads, which never worked because they always came back.

The neglect from staff exacerbated their feelings of helplessness.

Another youth responded saying that they had a constant leaky toilet and, in one occurrence, the toilet overflowed, damaging her belongings. Agency staff told her they would not reimburse her or replace the damaged items, even after the apartment had flooded a total of three times. Another youth shared that the unsanitary conditions made them feel unsafe and ashamed. “I was constantly cleaning rat droppings. It was traumatizing. It was psychologically damaging because my stuff was getting destroyed,” they said, recalling how flooding and infestations damaged the belongings they had worked so hard to acquire. Brown water flowing from faucets was a recurring issue, making it impossible to bathe or brush teeth. “There would be days where the water was not drinkable,” they recounted, and the dismissive responses from staff left them feeling disregarded.

One young person described their experience as deeply disappointing, sharing that “there were a lot of water leaks, roaches, infestation, and shady people around the neighborhood.” They expressed how they never felt safe, and the quality of housing was far below what they had expected. When a water leak occurred, it lasted for days without any urgency from staff. “I had to go on YouTube to figure out how to mitigate the situation,” they explained. The experience with roaches was particularly traumatizing: “Every time I flicked the light on, there would be 15–20 roaches scattering, it honestly gave me PTSD which affects me even years after now that I’ve moved out into my own market rate apartment” which led to panic every time they used the lights. “It really takes a toll on your quality of life,” they reflected.

These conditions made them feel dirty and ashamed, to the point where they couldn’t cook or store food in their kitchen. “I could see rodent droppings all the time… I just resorted to eating Uber Eats all the time and wasting my money.”

For another young person, after living in four different supportive housing units, the unsanitary conditions became unbearable. “In my unit specifically, there were always huge, huge roaches… I often found centipedes in my apartment, especially in the kitchen,” they shared. These conditions made them feel dirty and ashamed, to the point where they couldn’t cook or store food in their kitchen. “I could see rodent droppings all the time… I just resorted to eating Uber Eats all the time and wasting my money.” The combined stress of these issues took a significant toll on their mental health. “All these issues combined on top of me trying to deal with my past trauma, trying to deal with school and work… it all winds down to where you lay your head at night because those things affect your mental health,” they said. Another resident described the frustration of dealing with broken appliances, clogged toilets, and brown water from faucets. “There were times when brown water was coming out of the faucet, and it took weeks or months for things to be fixed,” they shared. The presence of roaches and the neglect from maintenance staff only made things worse. “I requested that maintenance come in and spray to take care of the issue, but it never happened,” they said. The unresolved issues, combined with the unsafe environment surrounding the building, contributed to feelings of frustration and hopelessness.

​​Across the board, these young people shared experiences of neglect from both maintenance teams and staff who were supposed to help them. The infestations, brown water, and lack of basic repairs created an environment where they felt unsafe, dehumanized, and trapped. Despite their efforts to advocate for themselves, many were left feeling ignored. “I shouldn’t have to feel unsafe or feel like I’m less than just because I’m in affordable housing,” one youth expressed, reflecting the feelings of many living in these conditions.

Building Safety

One of the most alarming aspects of the living conditions reported by youth in supportive housing was the pervasive sense of insecurity and danger. Numerous youth detailed their experiences in this vein, painting a grim picture of daily life in these settings. These testimonies highlight not only the physical conditions but also the emotional toll taken on the residents. Several youth reported feeling unsafe due to the behavior of other tenants and inadequate building security, such as the absence of functioning security cameras, despite repeated requests for their installation or repair. Another youth described the distress caused by constant noise from neighbors arguing loudly, with sounds of objects being thrown and smashed, which added to the overall stress and discomfort. “I shouldn’t have to feel unsafe or feel like I’m less than just because I’m in affordable housing,” Such experiences significantly impact young people’s sense of safety, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in a place where they are supposed to call home.

“I shouldn’t have to feel unsafe or feel like I’m less than just because I’m in affordable housing.”

The presence of non-residents loitering around building entrances was also a recurring concern. Youth described discomforting scenes of men drinking and loitering at the front door, despite the “No Loitering” sign, which made them feel unsafe even when entering or exiting their own homes. “There were men always drinking and smoking in front of the building… it made me nervous to walk home,” they said, later adding, “I was just happy to have somewhere to live. And then I realized, like, no, this is really unsafe.” One youth noted, “There were men in the front of the building, the building was in a gang area, people drinking and smoking in the building. Guys sitting on the stairs, coming down the fire escapes past my window and people sleeping on the roof!” Another youth shared, “I didn’t feel comfortable, not a good environment to live in all the time, random men that make me feel uneasy in the building.”

Another youth highlighted the volatile mix of residents, saying, “Yes, because they had me in a building with other people with chronic mental health issues and drug abuse issues, people would knock and throw trash at my door. It created a hostile environment.” One young adult mentioned feeling particularly vulnerable when having to navigate areas of the building after encountering harassment from another tenant. “I can recall one experience where I got into a verbal altercation with a man who wasn’t even a tenant in the building, but he was always there. I did not feel safe. I even made a police report. Eventually, he was restricted from the building, meaning he was not allowed to enter. But I guess that didn’t mean anything, because I kept passing him in the hallway. I felt extremely unsafe and uncomfortable going back home because I was fearful of running into that person.”

“People would be ripping up other people’s mail, ripped up with pee there.”

In addition to interpersonal issues, the lack of physical upkeep of the buildings also contributed to the unsafe conditions. Reports of human waste in common areas, such as stairways, hallways, and elevators, were common, and particularly distressing. “Pee in the elevators every day, smoking weed, needles in the elevators, unsightly,” one youth remarked, highlighting the neglect and lack of cleanliness. Another alarming report included seeing “[p]eople pooping and peeing in the hallways, mail stolen and garbage everywhere,” illustrating a severe breakdown in building management and maintenance. “People would be ripping up other people’s mail, ripped up with pee there,” a respondent told us. “One man was sitting in the stair and was put out of his apartment; he peed in the stairway and pooped there. You could tell it was human poop.” These reports reflect the broader reality experienced by many residents.

The absence of surveillance not only compromises building upkeep but also creates an environment where theft and vandalism go unchecked. In fact, 52.7 percent of surveyed youth reported their packages being stolen at least once at their doorsteps, pointing to a failure to implement basic security measures, such as functioning cameras. “All of my packages that I ever got shipped there were stolen,” one youth shared. “The super is saying that the cameras don’t work, so he can’t check the cameras. They make up all of these excuses.” All of the above foster a heightened and generalized sense of insecurity among the youth living in these conditions.

“When I moved into this apartment, my main issue was safety for all, because I was pregnant when I moved in, and there were people throwing trash and glass at the door.”

These stories illustrate a common theme among youth living in supportive housing: The lack of safety, security, and basic maintenance is a pervasive issue that exacerbates the already existing challenges they face. As one youth poignantly stated, “I just never really felt safe, and the quality just wasn’t up to basic standard.” This is especially troubling given that supportive housing is meant to be a place where vulnerable youth can transition into adulthood with the necessary resources and stability, yet many feel as though they are trapped in environments that are anything but supportive. “When I moved into this apartment, my main issue was safety for all, because I was pregnant when I moved in, and there were people throwing trash and glass at the door,” one young adult recalled, underscoring how safety concerns are particularly distressing for those with additional responsibilities, such as caring for a child.

In the face of these systemic failures, many youth felt abandoned, as their concerns about safety and building maintenance were routinely dismissed or ignored. This lack of responsiveness from staff and management not only left them feeling unsafe but also deeply frustrated and hopeless. “Living in affordable housing shouldn’t mean feeling unsafe or unworthy,” one youth concluded, capturing the widespread sentiment that the quality of their housing and security should not be compromised simply because they are part of a subsidized housing program.

Staff Responses and Support

Behind the façade of care and assistance, foster youth grapple with a harsh reality of neglect and inadequate support from many of those meant to advocate for them. A significant number of residents reported feeling neglected and dismissed by the representatives of the state and contracted programs. When asked to rate how supportive the agency staff were, only 24.6 percent (fourteen youth) felt they often received the necessary support. In contrast, 35.1 percent (thirty youth) felt that they didn’t receive the support they needed to navigate “supportive” housing issues.

“It feels like the support got dropped as soon as I got there.”

Across multiple interviews, youth shared their disappointment and frustration with the staff in their supportive housing programs. For many, the lack of responsiveness and neglect from staff created an environment where they felt dismissed and forgotten, amplifying their already difficult situations. One youth explained, “It feels like the support got dropped as soon as I got there,” highlighting how the promise of supportive housing was not fulfilled. They went on to say, “There wasn’t much support or help, and it just felt like I wasn’t a priority when I needed them. It didn’t feel like they were always there.” This sentiment was echoed by another youth, who mentioned feeling that staff treated their concerns as a second thought: “There you go, here’s a studio apartment, here’s some cheap rent… But it didn’t feel like support.”

“It felt like your cheap rent is equated to poor service or poor quality.”

For many, the lack of urgency from staff when issues arose, such as maintenance problems or safety concerns, was a significant source of frustration. One participant shared their experience with a water leak: “I had a water leak which lasted four or five days… I needed them to come now, but it didn’t feel urgent enough to them.” They continued, “I had to figure out how to fix it myself, watching YouTube videos. It felt like your cheap rent is equated to poor service or poor quality.” These stories are not isolated. Another youth shared, “The super never came when I had mice in my room, just gave me mouse traps and rat poison, which didn’t help. It felt like they didn’t care at all.”

Youth often felt that their complaints were met with indifference or even ridicule. One participant expressed feeling belittled, saying, “They make you feel like they’re doing you a favor because you’re not in the real world paying rent.” Another youth recalled, “When I complained to my caseworker about my issues, I felt like she was exhausted of hearing me. Eventually, I just stopped complaining altogether because nothing would get fixed.” This culture of neglect and dismissal by staff left many youth feeling abandoned in their own homes.

Many youth detailed their frustrating experiences, indicating a systemic issue with agency staff responsiveness and advocacy. One young adult mentioned frequently receiving “the runaround” when seeking services, which only worsened their situation. Another common theme was the minimization of youths’ complaints, with statements from staff such as “keep food away” or that “this is all NYC housing” in response to issues with rodents. Responses like these made the youth feel as if they were the cause of these infestations when in reality, they were put into buildings that had these pervasive issues before they got there. More distressingly, some staff reminded the youth to “be grateful for any housing at all,” effectively silencing their valid concerns about safety and livability. Another youth summed up the disconnection between staff and residents: “We were victims of a failed system, not anything else.”

Despite these hardships, youth are often told to be grateful for having a roof over their heads, even when that roof leaks, the heat doesn’t work, and their complaints are ignored. “It just sets you up with this narrative that you made it… but I hated feeling like I was put in a box and told to be grateful for something that should be a basic human right,” said one youth. The attitude of staff towards residents created feelings of shame and inadequacy. One youth explained, “The staff made me feel invisible, inferior, and small.” Another shared, “They told me, ‘You need to start living in the real world. This is the best you’re gonna get.’” These interactions reinforced the sense that supportive housing staff saw the residents as undeserving of a better quality of life, simply because they were in subsidized housing.

“They told me, ‘You need to start living in the real world. This is the best you’re gonna get.’”

Instances of outright neglect were also reported, such as staff being dismissive of serious issues like rat feces on kitchen appliances or rats eating their food in the cabinets. One youth vividly described how they did not feel comfortable using their stove due to rat droppings, and despite reporting this to the building superintendent, no action was taken. The youth shared their feelings of discomfort and helplessness, stating, “Roaches coming out of the tub! Roaches coming out of the sink. They said they would get to it, a week would go by and they would put it off.” The response to these issues by staff and management was frequently inadequate, with many youth feeling that their complaints were ignored or dismissed. One young adult’s plea for better extermination services reflected a broader sentiment that the needs and well-being of the residents are often overlooked when they said, “I made multiple reports, but they didn’t do anything about it! We need exterminations! But they gave us mouse traps and it felt like the mice were multiplying.” 

Moreover, many youth felt that the staff did not genuinely care about their well-being. The prevailing dismissal was, “There’s nothing we can do,” but more pointed responses suggested apathy or even antipathy. Phrases like, “Good luck finding something better” were common, and respondents observed that agency staff appeared “robotic,” “nonchalant,” and “not really supportive.” The combination of dismissive attitudes, poor maintenance response, and an overall lack of support from staff contributes to the residents’ feeling of abandonment, exacerbating the challenges they face in transitioning to independent adulthood. As one youth put it, “Supportive housing was meant to offer youth support, but it gave me trauma.”

Where Do Youth Actually Want to Live?

In an effort to understand where young adults transitioning from foster care would like to live, the survey included a crucial question, “In what kind of neighborhoods would you like to see supportive housing in the future?” The responses were enlightening, revealing not just preferences for certain locations but also the qualities these young individuals seek in their ideal living environments.

Many youth expressed a strong preference for neighborhoods that combine the tranquility of suburban life with the conveniences and vibrancy of urban settings. Specifically, the borough of Queens was frequently mentioned, with neighborhoods like Astoria and Forest Hills praised for their quieter, suburban-like atmospheres. Similarly, Manhattan’s appeal was evident, with areas such as Greenwich Village and the Financial District noted for their central locations and vibrant cultural scenes. Brooklyn also stood out, particularly neighborhoods like Williamsburg, Park Slope, and Bedford-Stuyvesant, which are celebrated for their cultural vibrancy and relative safety.

Youth transitioning out from the child welfare system desire neighborhoods that offer not only safety and cleanliness but also spaces that foster community, personal growth, and accessibility to safe and enriching experiences.

Overall, the responses from this survey paint a clear picture of what young adults exiting foster care seek in their living environments, in stark contrast with where these supportive housing units are located now. Youth transitioning out from the child welfare system desire neighborhoods that offer not only safety and cleanliness but also spaces that foster community, personal growth, and accessibility to safe and enriching experiences.

Analysis

The data and responses collected in this report are all concerned with the critical transitional phase from adolescence to adulthood for young adults aging out of foster care, and paint a dire picture of what the typical experience for them in New York City is like. Unlike their peers, these youth must manage the complexities of daily life without the typical family support to cushion their journey to independence. Tasks like processing past trauma, attending school, maintaining employment, and managing personal finances are further complicated by the often distressing and unsafe living conditions in their supportive housing. This toxic combination of overwhelming responsibilities and substandard home environments underscores the degree to which the state has been derelict in their care, and reveals the urgent need for enhanced supportive measures that truly address this population’s unique circumstances.

These young individuals deserve a safe and nurturing environment, not one fraught with dangers and indignities. Why should they have no reliable access to a decent home, one that they are proud of? Imagine stepping into their shoes: instead of focusing on exams or planning weekend activities, they must navigate hallways strewn with human waste, avoid rodents in their living spaces, and contend with a constant sense of fear and anxiety. Such conditions are not just unsuitable—they are outright hazardous and inhumane, undermining the stability that supportive housing is supposed to provide. These buildings and units that claim to be “supportive housing” for youth are anything but. One youth mentioned that it feels like “your cheap rent is equated to the quality of housing you get.” Youth expressed feeling ashamed of the places they were supposed to call home, often admitting they were reluctant to invite friends or family over due to embarrassment and fear of being judged for living in such unclean and neglected conditions.

In reflecting on their experiences, many youth in foster care describe the profound disappointment and emotional toll that comes with living in substandard supportive housing. As one young person expressed it, “[The impression is that] because you’re in affordable housing, or because your housing is cheap, the quality should go down. It makes you feel, at least for me, a little subhuman sometimes, because it’s like, I guess I’m not worthy of having good stuff.” This feeling of unworthiness permeates their daily lives, leaving them feeling as though they should simply be grateful for conditions that barely meet basic human rights.”I just hated feeling like I should be grateful for something that is just a basic human right,” another youth shared, highlighting the internal conflict many face.

Building safety issues, such as stolen packages and insufficient security measures, further jeopardize their sense of security. The absence of effective oversight reveals a deep-rooted issue: youth are placed in neglected buildings with unresponsive management, compelling them to repeatedly advocate for basic repairs and cleanliness and often get responses that belittled their experiences, let alone actually addressing the issue in question. They are often made to feel that they should be grateful for the substandard housing provided, fearing that frequent complaints could jeopardize their stability. This ongoing struggle to have their needs met leaves many unsupported and isolated, exacerbating the challenges of transitioning out of foster care.

“I went to bed crying because of how dirty I felt in my supportive housing unit, and I thought to myself, this name is a lie. It’s not a supportive housing unit.”

Youth in foster care deserve more than to merely survive in these conditions—they deserve to thrive. “[We] deserve to feel like they’re not getting low-budget housing,” said one resident, yet the reality often leaves them ashamed and defeated. “I went to bed crying because of how dirty I felt in my supportive housing unit, and I thought to myself, this name is a lie. It’s not a supportive housing unit,” another young person recalled. These environments, meant to provide stability, instead leave many feeling trapped, unsupported, and disillusioned.

For many, the system’s failure extends beyond the physical conditions of the housing. “We already had a hard past. We’re already dealing with a lot today, and these issues that we’re dealing with make no sense,” one youth reflected. The emotional burden is further compounded by a sense of powerlessness. “I feel like a lot of youth don’t come forward and speak about the issues because they’re ashamed. After complaining a thousand times, by the 1,001st time, they start to feel like, ‘what’s the use of me complaining?’” This silence only deepens the isolation, making it harder to advocate for change.

Ultimately, these young people’s experiences reflect a system that has failed to live up to its promise. “I feel like the buildings aren’t worth that type of funding. There are thousands of dollars going into youth in foster care to be in supportive environments, and these buildings are everything except for supportive.” The mental health impacts are profound and lasting, as one resident shared: “The issues I dealt with in my supportive housing were extremely taxing on my mental health.” These testimonies reveal the urgent need for reform—because no young person should feel as though they are simply “surviving” when they deserve to live with dignity and security.

The often dismissive or unhelpful responses from staff reflect a deeper systemic problem. If youth were housed in well-maintained buildings with responsible management to begin with, many of these pervasive issues could be preemptively resolved, eliminating the need for constant complaints. The cumulative impact of unresponsive support is profound: for young adults already grappling with the demands of aging out of the system and independent living, this additional burden significantly hinders their ability to feel secure and succeed, whether at home or away from it. The call they are making for more equitable and compassionate measures is not just about improving housing—it’s about affirming their right to live with dignity and safety.

Survey responses about the housing they would most want illustrated more than basic geographical preferences: they indicate the neighborhood qualities that are crucial for their well-being and growth. Cleanliness and safety were paramount, reflecting a widespread desire for well-maintained areas free from crime and drug abuse. The importance of green spaces and security was also clear, highlighting an interest in environments that promote healthy lifestyles. Many youth aspired to live in upscale or affluent neighborhoods, associating these areas with better building maintenance and a higher quality of life. The desire for culturally vibrant and diverse communities speaks to the importance of inclusivity and dynamic social interactions in their daily lives. Additionally, recurring themes of accessibility to amenities and resources underscored the necessity for convenient access to services that enhance daily living. Unique aspirations also surfaced, with some young adults envisioning more personalized living spaces such as townhouses with multiple floors and outdoor areas, reflecting their dreams of homeownership in stable, intimate environments. Others sought neighborhoods that were not just safe and clean but genuinely welcoming and positive, suggesting a need for supportive community networks to aid their transition into independent adulthood.

The voices captured in this report paint a vivid picture of the stark realities faced by young adults aging out of foster care. These youth are not just asking for shelter, nor are they asking to live in private gated communities—they are yearning for a place they can call home, free from the constant battle against neglect, insecurity, and indignity. While their peers can lean on familial support, these young individuals must navigate the labyrinth of adulthood largely on their own, burdened by past traumas and the weight of daily survival in substandard conditions in the name of “supportive housing.” The environments that should serve as stepping stones to independence instead become obstacles that undermine their progress and erode their sense of self-worth.

Imagine a world where these young people could focus on their futures instead of fearing their present; where supportive housing truly supports, providing not just a roof but a foundation for growth, safety, and belonging. It is time to reimagine these spaces—not as mere shelters but as springboards for success, nurturing environments that empower youth rather than diminish them. They deserve more than survival: they deserve to thrive, to be proud of where they live, and to feel valued in their communities.

The call to action is clear: we must invest in housing that meets not only the basic standards of safety and cleanliness but also respects the dignity and aspirations of these young adults. Let us commit to creating a future where no young person has to feel ashamed of their home—a future where supportive housing lives up to its promise, providing a true foundation for independence, opportunity, and hope.

Some might argue that the housing shortage in New York affects everyone, but youth aging out of foster care represent a group with distinct and pressing needs. Providing them with quality housing is a matter of public responsibility—they are emerging adults who have already been through government systems. Without stable housing, they are often left to navigate the adult world without the family or community support others may have. Providing these young adults with access to quality housing isn’t about cutting the line: it’s about leveling the playing field, giving them a fair chance to succeed in life after an already challenging childhood.

Market Rates and Systemic Underinvestment

Understanding the financial constraints faced by youth in supportive housing is crucial for addressing the systemic issues that hinder their well-being. During a conversation I had with staff from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, representatives acknowledged that the funding allocated for housing these individuals only covers the lower end of the fair market rate. This reveals the department’s awareness of the disparity between current funding levels and the realistic cost of rent today. According to the city’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, the fair market rate for monthly rent in the New York City metro area is $2,451 for a one-bedroom and $2,386 for a studio. However, these rates include two counties north of the city (Putnam County and Rockland County), which traditionally have lower rents than the five boroughs. In contrast, data from Douglas Elliman in June 2024 shows that the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment was significantly higher: $3,575 in Brooklyn, $4,391 in Manhattan, and $3,174 in Queens. The difference between the fair market rate and the average rent in Brooklyn is $1,124, highlighting the significant underfunding of supportive housing units.

The Supportive Housing Network of New York reports that funding for rent and supportive services for scattered site units was increased for the first and only time in 2022 to $34,681 annually, or $2,890 per month, to address roommate conflicts among youth. Originally, the NY/NY III program was funded at just $22,000 per person per year for rent and services in 2005. Even with the 2022 increase, most youth surveyed still rate their placements poorly, facing the same persistent issue—that this funding still lags far behind today’s market realities, and that the system suffers from a critical and ongoing shortfall. Similarly, the NYC 15/15 rental subsidy remains tied to the 2017 fair market rate of $1,352 for a studio,¹ far below today’s market rates. These funding gaps perpetuate cycles of neglect and instability for youth in supportive housing. To address these gaps effectively, it is essential to consider the locations where these youth wish to live and the qualities they value in their neighborhoods and units.

Policy Recommendations

These experiences shared in this report underscore the urgent need for systemic changes in how supportive housing for former foster youth is managed. The reported conditions not only fail to support these young adults in their transition to independence, but also expose them to environments that can significantly hinder their personal and professional development. Young adults transitioning from foster care are entitled to comprehensive support systems that genuinely facilitate their transition into independent adulthood. That starts with truly supportive housing in the borough they are most comfortable in, in buildings where they feel dignified, safe and proud. Young people are under the care of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the foster care agencies that apply to administer supportive housing programs; accordingly, these agencies must address the concerns raised in this report and to ensure healthy environments for these young people. The policy recommendations discussed below would make significant headway toward that goal.

Increase the city and state’s financial commitments to meet average market rent rates.

To ensure the safety and cleanliness of supportive housing environments, it is proposed that the city and state allocate sufficient additional funds to cover 100 percent of the average market rent for supportive housing units. Adequate funding is essential for securing the safe, clean, and supportive living environments that young adults need to thrive. Furthermore, this funding should be indexed to the market rate, ensuring that as rent prices increase over time, the financial support from the city and state increases proportionally. This will prevent funding shortfalls and ensure that supportive housing remains sustainable and able to provide high-quality living conditions as the cost of living rises.

Assign a dedicated ombudsman to youth housing.

To ensure that the voices of youth are heard and their housing issues are promptly addressed, a dedicated ombudsman, an office that would be run by a different entity separate from the Administration of Children’s Services, should be created, and should be appointed specifically for supportive housing units for former foster youth. This ombudsman would oversee the resolution of complaints, ensure timely resolution of maintenance issues, and act as an advocate for the residents’ rights, providing a direct and effective channel for addressing housing concerns.

Enforce stricter building inspections and implement a formal complaint process.

To maintain high standards of living, regular, unannounced inspections of supportive housing buildings should be implemented by those that oversee foster care agencies in this process (like DOHMH and HRA)ideally four times per year. These inspections will hold landlords and agencies accountable and ensure compliance with health and safety standards in the same way that the Human Resources Administration Housing Choice Voucher program conducts their inspections with corresponding checklists for each building. Withholding of payments or other financial consequences should be imposed on landlords who fail to meet these standards, thus incentivizing better maintenance and care. Additionally, a formal complaint documentation process should be established, allowing residents to report issues, track number of occurrences and track the resolution of their complaints. This system will ensure transparency and accountability, providing a clear record of maintenance and safety issues that need addressing.

Conduct ongoing surveys and regularly evaluate feedback.

Continuous improvement in the quality of supportive housing can be achieved through the implementation of ongoing surveys and feedback mechanisms administered by agency staff. Regular feedback from residents will help ACS identify and address issues promptly, ensuring that housing conditions are consistently monitored and improved. This approach will help create and enforce accountability for the agencies they oversee. To ensure the quality of supportive housing, ACS can implement entrance and exit surveys for each placement, allowing youth to share their experiences and assess the living conditions and overall impact on their personal growth. Regular feedback collected through these surveys will enable ACS to swiftly identify issues and enforce accountability for the agencies they oversee, fostering an environment where housing conditions are continuously monitored and consistently improved.

Submit, and publish, an annual report to the New York City Council.

To enhance transparency, facilitate informed decision-making, and ensure that the needs of youth in supportive housing are met effectively, the Administration for Children’s Services should submit an annual public report to the New York City Council, which would include data and information that can be used to track the overall progress of this population of youth in the following issue areas: locations of supportive housing buildings; number and nature of maintenance requests and their resolution times; race, ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic backgrounds of youth residents; funding allocations and expenditures for program operation; resident satisfaction and feedback on living conditions; and outcomes related to the transition out of supportive housing. These data will help the city and state in understanding how well their programs are preparing youth for independent adulthood and identifies areas where additional support may be needed. Annual data reporting will provide a comprehensive overview of the supportive housing landscape, promoting accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement in the quality of supportive housing. This will ultimately contribute to the empowerment and success of former foster youth.

Create opportunities for youth participation in housing decisions.

To create policies and programs that are truly responsive to the needs and experiences of former foster youth, the Administration of Children’s Services and the related housing agencies (Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and Human Resources Administration) should establish youth councils or advisory boards, using as models the ACS Youth Leadership Council, Fair Futures Youth Advocacy Board, and Court-Appointed Special Advocate Youth Advocacy Board. These councils, composed of former foster youth, would provide feedback and participate in decision-making processes, ensuring that their voices and the long-term changes that they request are heard and considered. They can offer insights into what kind of buildings they want to live in, identify buildings that should be designated as unacceptable based on their experiences, and recommend neighborhoods that should or should not be considered for supportive housing. This inclusive approach will ensure that the housing policies and programs are aligned with the actual needs and preferences of the youth they are designed to support.

Implement mandatory training for agency supportive housing staff.

Supportive housing staff should be required to undergo mandatory training from Fair Futures in trauma-informed care, and in proper procedures for assisting young people facing hardships in their placements. This training will equip staff with the skills needed to better support residents’ emotional and psychological well-being, thereby fostering a more supportive and understanding environment.

Prioritize youth aging out of foster care for homeless set-aside units in new affordable housing complexes.

To ensure that youth aging out of foster care have access to safe, stable, and high-quality housing, the City of New York should prioritize these young adults for the “homeless set-aside” units in all new affordable housing complexes. These units, mandated by the De Blasio administration to be included in all new affordable buildings, are specifically designed for at-risk populations and are subsidized to ensure affordability. 

By giving youth aging out of foster care first priority for these units, the city can provide them with housing that is newly constructed, well-maintained, and overseen by accountable owners, thus offering a more secure and supportive environment than many of the existing options. This policy would not only address the immediate housing needs of this vulnerable population but also help prevent the cycle of homelessness, enabling these young adults to transition more smoothly into independent adulthood.

Implementing this recommendation will require collaboration between the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Administration for Children’s Services, and nonprofit housing providers to create a streamlined process for identifying eligible youth and prioritizing their placement in these units. Additionally, ongoing monitoring and support services should be integrated to ensure that these young adults can maintain their housing and continue to progress toward stability and self-sufficiency.

Conclusion

The findings from this survey elucidate the dire conditions and inadequate support systems that characterize the status quo in supportive housing provided to New York City’s former foster youth. The testimonies of these young adults highlight a systemic failure to provide safe, secure, and supportive environments that are conducive to their development into independent adulthood. Policymakers must urgently address these issues by implementing stringent standards for housing quality, ensuring that staff responses effectively address the residents’ needs, and by allocating the correct amount of funding towards fair market housing.

Many may argue that “this is just how NYC housing is,” but youth exiting the child welfare system aren’t part of the general population. When placed in programs labeled as “supportive housing,” they deserve environments where they can truly thrive and feel secure, not face yet another uphill battle. These organizations shouldn’t take credit for offering “supportive” services when they often place young adults in substandard living conditions that stifle their growth. Only through comprehensive reforms can supportive housing fulfill its intended role as a transitional support for vulnerable young adults. Young people need housing today, tomorrow, and yesterday—but it must be quality housing that offers more than just affordability. It needs to be safe, dignified, and located in areas with real opportunities for growth and success, recognizing that equity is not about treating everyone the same, but about providing the resources and support that meet each individual’s unique circumstances.

1. To view relevant data, select “New York State” and “New York County.”