The Missing Piece: Housing Rights in the Autism CARES Act of 2024
For today’s article, I continue in my analysis of the proposed revisions to the Autism CARES Act. Today, we’ll focus on the issue of housing - which is conspicuously absent from the Act.
The housing crisis facing autistic adults in the United States is a pressing yet often overlooked issue. With an estimated 80% unemployment rate among autistic adults, secure and affordable housing remains out of reach for many, exacerbating vulnerabilities and hindering independence. Thus, today’s article examines the complex interplay between autism, housing insecurity, and the increasing financialisation of the housing market. To unravel this multifaceted problem, we will employ several theoretical frameworks. Lenin’s ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ and Mao’s ‘On Contradiction’ will guide our analysis of the motivations and consequences of housing financialisation. Meanwhile, the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) and Hannah Arendt’s concept of the ‘tyranny of nobody’ will illuminate the psychological and social impacts on autistic individuals navigating this challenging landscape. Through these lenses, we aim to shed light on the systemic issues perpetuating housing insecurity for autistic adults and explore potential paths towards more equitable and supportive housing solutions.
The Current Landscape of Autism and Housing
The awareness of autism in the United States has risen steadily over the past decades, with current estimates suggesting that 1 in 36 children are formally diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. However, as these children grow into adulthood (because, you know, autistic kids become autistic adults), they face a stark reality: an estimated 80% of autistic adults are unemployed or underemployed, a statistic that paints a grim picture of their economic prospects. This high unemployment rate directly impacts their ability to secure stable, affordable housing, a fundamental human need that remains elusive for many in the autistic community.
The housing challenges faced by autistic adults are multifaceted and often overlooked in policy discussions. Many require specific accommodations to thrive, such as sensory-friendly environments, proximity to support services, or housing designed to foster independence whilst providing necessary assistance. Yet, the current housing market, driven by profit-maximising entities, rarely caters to these specialised needs. Moreover, the recent trend of financial institutions purchasing single-family homes and converting them into rentals further exacerbates the housing crisis for autistic individuals, reducing affordable options and increasing housing insecurity.
Alarmingly, the word ‘housing’ is conspicuously absent from the recent revisions to the Autism CARES Act of 2024. This glaring omission underscores a systemic failure to address one of the most pressing issues facing autistic adults and their families. The Act’s focus on research and ‘early intervention,’ whilst important, neglects the lifelong needs of autistic individuals, particularly in terms of housing stability. This oversight not only perpetuates the housing crisis for autistic adults but also places an enormous burden on families who must navigate complex and often unsupportive systems to ensure their loved ones have a safe place to call home.
Financialisation of the Housing Market
The American housing market has undergone a profound transformation in recent years, marked by the increasing involvement of large financial institutions in the single-family home sector. This trend, often referred to as the financialisation of housing, has seen corporations like Blackstone and Invitation Homes purchasing vast numbers of single-family homes and converting them into rental properties. This shift represents a significant departure from traditional homeownership models and has far-reaching implications for housing availability and affordability, particularly for vulnerable populations such as autistic adults.
To understand this phenomenon, we can turn to Lenin’s seminal work, ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.’ Lenin posited that capitalism inevitably evolves into a stage characterised by the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, leading to the formation of monopolies. The current housing market trend eerily mirrors Lenin’s analysis. Large financial institutions, armed with enormous capital reserves, are able to outbid individual homebuyers and smaller investors, effectively creating a monopoly-like control over housing in many areas.
This monopolistic tendency in the housing market aligns with Lenin’s concept of finance capital, where banking and industrial capital merge to form a financial oligarchy. In the context of housing, we see investment banks and private equity firms wielding their financial might to dominate a sector once primarily controlled by individual homeowners and small-scale landlords. The result is a housing market increasingly driven by the profit motives of large corporations rather than the shelter needs of communities.
The impact of this financialisation on housing availability is profound and multifaceted. As more single-family homes are converted into rental properties, the stock of homes available for purchase diminishes, driving up prices and making homeownership increasingly unattainable for many, including autistic adults and their families. Furthermore, these corporate landlords, driven by profit maximisation, often implement rent increases and cost-cutting measures that can lead to decreased housing quality and stability.
For autistic adults, who often require specific housing accommodations and stability, this financialisation trend poses particular challenges. The reduced availability of affordable single-family homes limits options for independent living or family-supported housing arrangements. Moreover, the impersonal nature of corporate landlords may be less amenable to making necessary accommodations or providing the understanding often required by autistic tenants.
In essence, the financialisation of housing represents a modern manifestation of the monopoly capitalism Lenin described, with dire consequences for housing accessibility and affordability, especially for vulnerable populations like autistic adults.
Contradictions in Housing Policy and Practice
Mao Zedong’s philosophical work ‘On Contradiction’ provides a valuable framework for analysing the complex and often conflicting interests within the US housing market, particularly as they pertain to autistic adults. Mao posited that contradictions exist in all phenomena and processes, and that understanding these contradictions is key to effecting change.
In the context of housing policy and practice for autistic adults, we can identify several significant contradictions. The primary contradiction lies between the fundamental human right to adequate housing and the treatment of housing as a commodity for profit. This contradiction is particularly acute for autistic adults, who often require specialised housing arrangements that may not align with profit-maximising strategies.
This primary contradiction gives rise to several secondary contradictions. One such contradiction is between the stated government policy of supporting individuals with disabilities and the actual practice of allowing market forces to dictate housing availability and affordability. Another lies in the tension between the need for long-term, stable housing for autistic adults and the short-term profit motives of corporate landlords and property investors.
Furthermore, there’s a contradiction between the push for community integration of autistic individuals and the reality of a housing market that often segregates based on economic means. The Autism CARES Act of 2024, despite its name, contradicts its purported care by omitting any mention of housing, one of the most crucial aspects of autistic adult life.
These contradictions manifest in practical ways. For instance, whilst there’s a recognised need for supportive housing for autistic adults, there’s a lack of financial incentives for developers to create such housing. Similarly, whilst stability is crucial for many autistic individuals, the financialised housing market often prioritises flexibility and turnover to maximise profits.
Mao argued that contradictions are not static but evolve over time, and that new contradictions can emerge as old ones are resolved. In the context of housing for autistic adults, resolving these contradictions would require a fundamental shift in how housing is conceptualised and provided. It would necessitate moving from a model that prioritises profit to one that emphasises housing as a basic right and essential component of care for autistic individuals.
Understanding these contradictions is crucial for developing effective housing policies for autistic adults. It highlights the need for interventions that directly address the conflict between market forces and social needs, potentially through increased regulation, public housing initiatives, or innovative models of community-owned housing. Only by grappling with these fundamental contradictions can we hope to create a housing system that truly meets the needs of autistic adults.
The Power Threat Meaning Framework and Housing Insecurity
The PTMF, developed by Lucy Johnstone and Mary Boyle, offers a radical alternative to traditional psychiatric models. Rooted in critical psychology and social constructionism, the PTMF posits that psychological distress is not a result of individual pathology, but rather a response to life experiences shaped by power dynamics, threats, and the meanings individuals derive from these experiences.
When applied to the housing insecurity faced by autistic adults, the PTMF provides a revealing lens. The ‘power’ aspect is evident in the socio-economic structures that privilege profit over human needs, exemplified by the financialisation of housing. Large financial institutions wield immense power in shaping the housing market, often to the detriment of vulnerable populations like autistic adults.
The ‘threat’ component manifests in multiple ways for autistic adults facing housing insecurity. Beyond the immediate threat of homelessness, there are threats to stability, independence, and wellbeing. The constant stress of potential eviction or rent increases poses a significant threat to the mental health of autistic individuals, many of whom rely heavily on routine and predictability.
The ‘meaning’ autistic adults and their families derive from this situation is often one of powerlessness, exclusion, and societal neglect. The absence of housing provisions in the Act sends a clear message: that stable, appropriate housing is not considered a crucial aspect of care for autistic individuals. This perceived abandonment can lead to feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness, further exacerbating mental health challenges.
Conversely, financial institutions and research organisations derive entirely different meanings from the same situation. For them, the housing crisis and the Act represent opportunities - for profit, for research funding, for expanding their influence. This stark contrast in meaning-making highlights the deep contradictions within the current system.
The PTMF also helps us understand the threat responses of autistic adults to housing insecurity. These may include withdrawal, anxiety, depression, or in some cases, behavioural changes that are often pathologised rather than understood as rational responses to genuine threats.
Furthermore, the PTMF illuminates how societal narratives around autism and housing can compound these issues. The dominant narrative that frames autism as a ‘disorder’ to be ‘treated’ or ‘cured’ rather than a form of neurodiversity to be accommodated is reflected in housing policies that fail to consider the specific needs of autistic adults.
By applying the PTMF, we can shift the focus from individual ‘deficits’ to the systemic issues that create and perpetuate housing insecurity for autistic adults. This framework challenges us to address the power imbalances, mitigate the threats, and create new, more empowering narratives around autism and housing. It calls for a radical rethinking of housing policies, one that prioritises the lived experiences and needs of autistic individuals over the profit motives of financial institutions.
Hannah Arendt’s “Tyranny of Nobody” in the Housing Market
Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “tyranny of nobody,” originally formulated to describe the bureaucratic nature of totalitarian regimes, finds a chilling parallel in the modern American housing market. Arendt posited that the most oppressive form of power is one that cannot be attributed to any individual, but rather to an impersonal system. In the context of housing, this tyranny manifests in the form of corporate landlords and financial institutions that have come to dominate the market.
The trend of large financial institutions buying up single-family homes and converting them into rentals exemplifies this tyranny. These corporate entities operate with a level of anonymity and unaccountability that Arendt would have recognised as deeply problematic. For autistic adults seeking housing, this means dealing with an impersonal, often automated system that lacks the flexibility and understanding that individual landlords might offer.
What’s particularly insidious about this modern manifestation of the “tyranny of nobody” is its profit-driven nature. Unlike totalitarian governments, which Arendt saw as driven by ideology, this corporate tyranny is motivated purely by financial gain. This shift represents a disturbing trend in American society, where functions traditionally associated with government - including the provision of basic necessities like housing - are increasingly outsourced to private corporations.
The impact on autistic adults’ sense of agency and community is profound. When facing a faceless corporate entity, the ability to negotiate, to request necessary accommodations, or to build a relationship with one’s landlord is severely diminished. This loss of agency can be particularly detrimental to autistic individuals, many of whom already struggle with self-advocacy in neurotypical-dominated spaces.
Moreover, the community aspect of housing, which can be crucial for autistic adults, is eroded under this system. Corporate landlords, driven by profit margins rather than community wellbeing, are less likely to invest in creating the kind of stable, supportive neighbourhoods that can be vital for autistic individuals’ quality of life.
Perhaps most troubling is the way this corporate tyranny intertwines with political power. As elected representatives see their personal wealth grow dramatically through their connections to these corporate interests, the line between government and corporate power blurs. This creates a system where policy decisions, including those affecting housing for vulnerable populations like autistic adults, are increasingly influenced by profit motives rather than public welfare.
Arendt’s framework thus provides a sobering lens through which to view the current housing crisis. It reveals a system where responsibility is diffused to the point of vanishing, where profit trumps human needs, and where the most vulnerable members of society - including many autistic adults - are left to navigate an impersonal and often hostile landscape. Addressing this “tyranny of nobody” in the housing market will require not just policy changes, but a fundamental rethinking of how we allow corporate interests to shape our most basic needs.
Policy Failures and Shortcomings
The Autism CARES Act of 2024, despite its ambitious title, represents a glaring failure in addressing the comprehensive needs of autistic individuals, particularly in the realm of housing. This legislation, ostensibly designed to support the autistic community, is conspicuously silent on one of the most pressing issues facing autistic adults: secure and affordable housing.
Again, the Act’s focus on research and ‘early intervention,’ whilst important, reveals a myopic view of autism that fails to consider the lifelong needs of autistic individuals. By neglecting to include specific provisions for housing, the Act perpetuates a dangerous oversight that leaves autistic adults vulnerable to housing insecurity and its myriad consequences.
Perhaps most troubling is the Act’s implicit delegation of responsibility to large research firms, with the vague hope that housing might be included in their efforts. This approach is deeply flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it fails to provide any guarantee that housing will be addressed, leaving a critical need to chance. Secondly, it ignores the poor track record of previous ‘research efforts’ in tackling practical, immediate concerns like housing.
Historical precedent gives little cause for optimism. Past iterations of autism-related legislation have consistently overlooked housing, focusing instead on more abstract research goals or early childhood ‘interventions.’ This pattern suggests that without explicit directives, housing is likely to remain a neglected issue throughout the term of this revision.
Moreover, the Act’s structure favours large, established research institutions over grassroots organisations or initiatives directly serving autistic adults. This bias not only potentially misallocates resources but also risks producing research that fails to translate into practical solutions for housing needs.
The policy failure extends beyond mere oversight. By not addressing housing, the Act tacitly endorses a system where autistic adults are left to navigate a hostile housing market dominated by profit-driven entities. This neglect compounds the challenges faced by a population already struggling with high unemployment rates and unique support needs.
Furthermore, the Act’s shortcomings reflect a broader failure in policy-making to recognise housing as a fundamental aspect of care and support for autistic individuals. This oversight perpetuates a cycle of instability and vulnerability, undermining other efforts to improve outcomes for autistic adults.
In essence, the Autism CARES Act of 2024, through its silence on housing, fails to live up to its name. It represents a missed opportunity to address a critical need and exemplifies a broader pattern of policy failures that continue to leave autistic adults without the comprehensive support they require to thrive in society.
Comparative Analysis: Alternative Approaches
When examining alternative housing policies, China’s approach of “nobody gets two until everyone has one” stands in stark contrast to the financialised American model. This policy, aimed at curbing speculation and ensuring equitable access to housing, represents a fundamentally different philosophy towards housing as a basic right rather than a commodity.
However, the mere suggestion of adopting such an approach in the United States is met with vehement opposition. The financialised American economy, with its deep-rooted belief in unfettered capitalism, views any form of market regulation or wealth redistribution as anathema. This hostility to change is fueled by powerful financial institutions and media conglomerates that benefit from the status quo, framing any alternative as ‘socialism’ - a term weaponised to stifle debate and maintain current power structures.
For autistic adults, a policy akin to China’s could potentially offer significant benefits. It could increase access to affordable housing, reduce the stress of housing insecurity, and potentially allow for more tailored housing solutions. The stability provided by such an approach could be particularly beneficial for autistic individuals who often thrive on routine and predictability.
However, the drawbacks of such a system cannot be ignored. The level of government control required might lead to reduced choice and flexibility (especially as the corporate landlords revolt). There’s also the risk of a one-size-fits-all approach that might not adequately address the diverse needs of the autistic community.
Other alternative models, such as community land trusts or housing cooperatives, offer potential middle grounds. These approaches prioritise community needs over profit, potentially allowing for more autism-friendly housing solutions. However, they too face significant barriers in a system geared towards maximising returns for large financial institutions.
The resistance to even considering these alternatives highlights the deeply entrenched nature of financialisation in American society. It underscores the challenge of implementing meaningful change in a system where policy is often shaped by corporate interests rather than public need. For autistic adults caught in this system, the result is a continued struggle for housing security in a market that prioritises profit over their fundamental needs.
The Role of Media and Public Perception
The media plays a pivotal role in shaping public understanding of autism and housing issues, often reinforcing narratives that align with corporate interests rather than the needs of autistic individuals. Mainstream media outlets, frequently owned by the same conglomerates that benefit from housing financialisation, tend to present a skewed picture of both autism and housing challenges.
Autism is often portrayed either as a childhood condition to be ‘overcome’ or as a severe disability requiring constant care, neglecting the diverse experiences of autistic adults. Similarly, housing issues are frequently framed in terms of market dynamics and investment opportunities, rather than as a fundamental human right.
This biased coverage has a profound impact on policy-making and public support. By presenting autism primarily as a medical issue and housing as a market commodity, the media narrative steers public discourse away from structural solutions that could benefit autistic adults. Instead, it fosters a climate where individualised ‘treatments for autism’ and market-based approaches to housing are seen as the only viable options.
The recent trend of states passing laws to prevent teachers from discussing subjects like socialism or authors such as Marx and Lenin further exacerbates this issue. These laws, which can result in teachers losing their credentials, effectively censor critical perspectives on economic systems and alternative approaches to social issues like housing. This censorship not only limits academic freedom but also restricts the public’s exposure to ideas that challenge the status quo.
By silencing discussions about alternative economic and political models, these laws make it even more difficult to address the housing crisis facing autistic adults. They create an environment where questioning the financialisation of housing or proposing more equitable models is seen as taboo or even dangerous.
This controlled narrative serves to maintain public support for policies that prioritise corporate profits over human needs. It makes it challenging to build widespread understanding of the unique housing challenges faced by autistic adults or to garner support for more inclusive and supportive housing policies.
The result is a public discourse that lacks nuance and fails to consider the complex realities of autistic adults navigating a hostile housing market. This narrow framing of both autism and housing issues ultimately hinders the development of comprehensive, effective policies that could truly address the housing needs of autistic individuals.
Potential Solutions and Future Directions
In envisioning solutions to the housing crisis facing autistic adults, we must look beyond the confines of the current financialised system. One compelling model worthy of consideration is the community housing programme in Vienna, Austria. This approach, where the majority of residents have access to adequate housing provided or subsidised by the city, offers a stark contrast to the profit-driven American model.
Vienna’s success in providing affordable, high-quality housing demonstrates that alternatives to market-driven housing policies are not only possible but can be highly effective. The city’s commitment to housing as a basic right, rather than a commodity, has resulted in a system that prioritises resident well-being over profit maximisation.
Adapting this model to meet the specific needs of autistic adults could involve creating purpose-built communities that combine independent living spaces with communal areas and on-site support services. These developments could be designed with sensory considerations in mind, offering a range of environments to suit different sensory profiles.
Community-based models, such as housing cooperatives or cohousing arrangements, could also be tailored to support autistic adults. These models allow for a balance of privacy and community, with shared resources and mutual support systems that could be particularly beneficial for autistic individuals navigating independent living.
Supportive housing options, where residents have access to on-site or easily accessible support services, could be expanded and adapted for autistic adults. These could range from minimal support for those requiring occasional assistance to more comprehensive services for individuals with higher support needs.
Crucially, any autism-specific housing initiatives must be developed with significant input from autistic individuals themselves. This ensures that the resulting housing options genuinely meet the diverse needs of the autistic community, rather than being based on neurotypical assumptions about what autistic people need.
Implementing such solutions in the United States would require a fundamental shift in how housing is conceptualised and funded. It would necessitate moving away from the current model of housing as a vehicle for wealth accumulation and towards a view of housing as a basic right and essential component of social infrastructure.
This shift could be facilitated through policy changes such as increased public investment in social housing, reforms to zoning laws to encourage more diverse and inclusive housing developments, and the implementation of rent control measures to ensure long-term affordability.
While such changes may seem radical in the context of the current American system, the urgent need for housing solutions for autistic adults - and indeed, for all vulnerable populations - demands bold action. By looking to successful models like Vienna’s and adapting them to meet the specific needs of autistic individuals, we can begin to envision a future where stable, appropriate housing is a reality for all autistic adults, not just a privileged few.
Final Thoughts …
The housing crisis facing autistic adults in the United States is not merely a symptom of broader economic trends, but a stark illustration of systemic failure and misplaced priorities. Since the inception of the first “autism act” in the US, we have witnessed a troubling pattern: the financial position of autistic individuals and their families has remained largely stagnant, whilst research organisations have proliferated and amassed considerable wealth.
This latest revision of the Autism CARES Act does little to disrupt this status quo. Instead, it perpetuates a cycle where autism is treated as a lucrative research subject rather than a lived reality requiring practical support. The Act’s silence on housing issues is deafening, leaving autistic adults to navigate an increasingly hostile housing market dominated by profit-driven entities.
The parallels between these research organisations and the financial institutions capitalising on the housing market are stark. Both have grown like flies attracted to excrement, feeding off the challenges faced by autistic individuals without providing tangible improvements to their quality of life. This parasitic relationship must be recognised and challenged.
We must demand a radical shift in how ‘autism support’ is conceptualised and implemented. Housing must be at the forefront of any comprehensive autism policy. We need initiatives that prioritise the creation of affordable, accessible, and autism-friendly housing options. This requires not just increased funding, but a fundamental reimagining of housing as a basic right rather than a commodity.
The time for half-measures and vague promises is long past. I call on policymakers, advocates, and the public to demand concrete action on housing for autistic adults. This includes:
Explicit inclusion of housing provisions in autism-related legislation.
Increased funding for autism-specific housing initiatives.
Implementation of rent control and tenant protection measures.
Development of community-based housing models tailored to autistic needs.
Greater involvement of autistic individuals in policy-making processes.
Only through sustained advocacy and a commitment to systemic change can we hope to address the housing crisis facing autistic adults. The stark reality is that without such action, we risk perpetuating a system that continues to marginalise and neglect some of our most vulnerable citizens. The time for change is now.