There are benefits to regionalization that impact everyone
Let’s take a look.
Benefits to our approach to regionalization around housing and homelessness systems have been widely recognized across the country. From think tanks, to non-profit consulting firms, governments and academia, regional homelessness prevention systems have been widely recognized for:
containing rent increases,
supporting more effective government decision making and cross-sector collaboration, and
more equitably and efficiently distributing resources.
Regionalization helps control rent increases
It is widely recognized that impacts to housing are regional. Housing markets are principally impacted by economic boons and busts that are not bound to city or county jurisdictions. Rather, housing markets align with transportation networks and labor markets that are regional in nature.
Aligning housing and homelessness systems to the regional housing system is proposed to contain housing costs and rental costs. They do so through regionalized data analysis and monitoring, coordinating regionalized crisis response resources (e.g., rental assistance), and supporting thoughtful regional planning for affordable and accessible housing.
Regionalized data helps understand the full picture of housing instability because it better illustrates the housing market. This allows for decision makers to be more informed about the problem and their impact. This also allows for a new flow of information that better supports piloting innovative solutions and pivoting where necessary.
Regionally coordinating crisis resources like rental assistance allows the region to increase the pool of dollars going to people in need instead of administration. Additionally, because resources aren’t constrained by county or city lines, more thoughtful distributions can account for the region’s need.
Regional housing planning and investment models have shown some impressive results when it comes to their impact on affordable housing. While there are limited instances across the nation of fully implemented models, committed metropolitan regions have experienced less severe increases in rents costs, decreasing rates of homelessness, and more successful implementation of longer-term housing investment strategies.
Regional government makes better decisions about the housing and homelessness systems
In Minnesota, county governments are responsible for administering the vast majority of homelessness services. However, because our seven-county metropolitan area is interconnected, homelessness is not contained in any one city or city. People move from place to place to find affordable places to live and services they can access.
When system decisions are driven by hyper-local political interests, they do not take into account regional impact. They also do not have the necessary structures to stay accountable to the long-term planning commitments necessary for the metro’s housing system. In the seven county metropolitan area, there currently is no established accountable governing body committed to this effort.
Locally, counties continue to hold collaborative environments to discuss the distribution of operations of homelessness services through Continuums of Care and other advisory meetings. Nevertheless, homelessness related conversations are more geared toward executing funding mandated activities rather than system change. This makes these discussion forums less relevant to partners that are not direct grant recipients and administrators. This also limits potential innovations and further distances homelessness prevention services from the affordable housing conversations moving forward.
Regionalization promotes more equitable and efficient distribution of resources
Regionalizing housing and homelessness prevention lets neighboring jurisdictions pool data, align strategies, and deploy dollars where need is greatest—rather than duplicating efforts county by county. When cities and counties plan together (shared goals, common intake/data standards, and coordinated siting), they gain economies of scale, reduce service gaps at borders, and respond to regional labor and housing markets that don’t stop at city lines. Local Housing Solutions and the National Association of Development Organizations both document how multi-jurisdiction strategies—ranging from joint rental assistance programs to full regional housing plans—improve targeting, streamline administration, and foster equitable outcomes.
Evidence shows that when regions channel resources into need-based rental assistance and prevention, they reduce homelessness and housing instability, with outsized benefits for households of color who are overrepresented among cost-burdened renters. Coordinated, adequately funded assistance helps people stay housed and shortens episodes of homelessness by cutting red tape and focusing help where risk is highest.
Across the country, regions that adopt shared playbooks—aligning zoning reforms, production and preservation, and homelessness response—are demonstrating real gains even amid national headwinds. Brookings highlights places reducing unsheltered homelessness through cross-system collaboration, while the Roosevelt Institute argues for a pivot from fragmented “localism” to regional rules that let governments plan, build, and invest at the scale of the problem. In short: regionalization turns a patchwork of programs into a coherent system that delivers fairer, faster results.