THE CONTINUUM OF CARE GAP
Emergency Shelter to Transitional Housing: Where Survivors Hit a Dead End
A State-by-State Analysis of Housing Pathway Gaps
Prepared by the Counter Trafficking Alliance (CTA)
June 2026
countertraffickingalliance.org
Acronyms Used in This Report
TH — Transitional Housing: a housing program providing 90 or more days of stable housing with wraparound services such as case management, job training, and legal assistance.
CTA — Counter Trafficking Alliance: the organization that compiled this report and maintains the national resource database.
HSI — Homeland Security Investigations: the federal law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security with dedicated anti-trafficking units (tip line: 1-866-347-2423).
FBI — Federal Bureau of Investigation: accepts trafficking tips at tips.fbi.gov, particularly for cases crossing state lines or involving organized networks.
NCMEC — National Center for Missing & Exploited Children: operates the CyberTipline for reporting online sexual exploitation of minors.
VAWA — Violence Against Women Act: federal legislation providing legal protections and housing resources that trafficking survivors may qualify for.
Executive Summary
A trafficking survivor who escapes their situation and reaches an emergency shelter has taken an extraordinary step. But what happens 30, 60, or 90 days later when their emergency stay ends? In too many states, the answer is: nothing. There is nowhere for them to go.
This analysis, conducted by the Counter Trafficking Alliance (CTA), examined emergency shelter and transitional housing capacity across all 50 states using CTA’s verified resource database—the largest publicly searchable directory of anti-trafficking resources in the United States. The findings reveal a systemic failure in the continuum of care: nationally, there are more than twice as many emergency shelters as transitional housing programs (1,252 shelters vs. 527 transitional housing programs—a 2.4:1 ratio). In 12 states, the ratio exceeds 4:1.
The consequences are devastating. Survivors who cannot transition to stable housing face re-trafficking, homelessness, or a return to their exploiter—not because they lack the will to rebuild, but because the infrastructure to support them simply does not exist. Emergency shelter is the front door of the survivor care system. Transitional housing is the bridge to independence. In half of America, that bridge is missing.
Why the Continuum of Care Matters
Emergency shelters and transitional housing serve fundamentally different purposes in a survivor’s recovery. Understanding this distinction is essential to understanding why the gap between them is so dangerous.
Emergency Shelter: Crisis Stabilization
Emergency shelters provide immediate safety—a bed, a locked door, and basic needs for days or weeks. They are designed for crisis intervention: getting a survivor out of harm’s way. Most shelters operate on 30- to 90-day stays, and many were originally built for domestic violence survivors rather than trafficking victims. They are essential, but they are not designed for long-term recovery.
Transitional Housing: The Bridge to Independence
Transitional housing programs typically provide 6 to 24 months of stable housing combined with wraparound services: case management, job training, financial literacy, legal assistance, trauma-informed counseling, and help obtaining identification documents. For trafficking survivors—who may have no credit history, no employment record, no government ID, and no safe family connections—this bridge period is not optional. It is the difference between rebuilding a life and falling back into exploitation.
The Gap Between Them
When a survivor’s emergency shelter stay ends and no transitional housing is available, they face an impossible choice. Some return to the streets. Some return to their trafficker—the only person who ever provided them housing, however exploitative. Some cycle through homelessness services that are not equipped to address their trauma. The continuum of care gap does not just fail survivors; it actively pushes them back toward the conditions they escaped.
The Findings: A Broken Pipeline
CTA reviewed shelter and transitional housing data for all 50 states. Nationally, the system contains 1,252 emergency shelter programs and only 527 transitional housing programs—a ratio of 2.4 shelters for every transitional housing program. But the national average obscures far worse conditions in individual states.
Twelve states have a critical gap of 4:1 or higher—meaning for every four emergency shelters, there is one or fewer transitional housing program. These are the states where survivors are most likely to complete an emergency shelter stay and have nowhere to go next.
Critical Gap States (4:1 Ratio or Higher)
| State | Emergency Shelters | Transitional Housing | Ratio | Population (M) | TH per Million |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | 29 | 4 | 7.2:1 | 4.2 | 1.0 |
| Virginia | 30 | 5 | 6.0:1 | 8.7 | 0.6 |
| California | 79 | 13 | 6.1:1 | 38.9 | 0.3 |
| Georgia | 33 | 6 | 5.5:1 | 11.0 | 0.5 |
| Arkansas | 15 | 3 | 5.0:1 | 3.1 | 1.0 |
| Rhode Island | 5 | 1 | 5.0:1 | 1.1 | 0.9 |
| Connecticut | 14 | 3 | 4.7:1 | 3.6 | 0.8 |
| South Dakota | 14 | 3 | 4.7:1 | 0.9 | 3.3 |
| Idaho | 18 | 4 | 4.5:1 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Colorado | 35 | 8 | 4.4:1 | 5.9 | 1.4 |
| South Carolina | 13 | 3 | 4.3:1 | 5.3 | 0.6 |
| Pennsylvania | 24 | 6 | 4.0:1 | 13.0 | 0.5 |
Among these 12 states are some of the nation’s largest: California (38.9 million residents, only 13 transitional housing programs), Pennsylvania (13 million, only 6), Virginia (8.7 million, only 5), and Georgia (11 million, only 6). Oregon has the worst ratio in the country at 7.2:1—a survivor leaving one of Oregon’s 29 emergency shelters has roughly a 1-in-7 chance of finding transitional housing in the same state.
Significant Gap States (2.5:1 to 3.9:1 Ratio)
| State | Emergency Shelters | Transitional Housing | Ratio | Population (M) | TH per Million |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota | 27 | 7 | 3.9:1 | 5.7 | 1.2 |
| Arizona | 22 | 6 | 3.7:1 | 7.4 | 0.8 |
| Alabama | 16 | 5 | 3.2:1 | 5.1 | 1.0 |
| Kansas | 19 | 6 | 3.2:1 | 2.9 | 2.0 |
| Michigan | 31 | 10 | 3.1:1 | 10.0 | 1.0 |
| North Carolina | 24 | 8 | 3.0:1 | 10.8 | 0.7 |
| Oklahoma | 15 | 5 | 3.0:1 | 4.0 | 1.2 |
| Illinois | 25 | 9 | 2.8:1 | 12.5 | 0.7 |
| Massachusetts | 19 | 7 | 2.7:1 | 7.0 | 1.0 |
| Missouri | 19 | 7 | 2.7:1 | 6.2 | 1.1 |
| New Mexico | 18 | 7 | 2.6:1 | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| Nebraska | 15 | 6 | 2.5:1 | 2.0 | 3.0 |
Combined, these 24 states—nearly half the nation—have at least 2.5 emergency shelters for every transitional housing program. They represent over 170 million Americans.
Per Capita: The Scale of the Shortage
Ratios tell one story. Per capita numbers tell another. When measured against population, the transitional housing shortage in large states becomes starkly visible.
California, the most populous state in the nation, has 0.3 transitional housing programs per million residents—meaning its 13 programs serve a population of 38.9 million. Ohio, with 11.8 million residents, has only 4 transitional housing programs. For comparison, Vermont (population 650,000) has 10—a rate of 15.4 per million, or roughly 51 times California’s per capita rate.
| State | TH Programs | Population (M) | TH per Million Residents |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | 13 | 38.9 | 0.3 |
| Ohio | 4 | 11.8 | 0.3 |
| Georgia | 6 | 11.0 | 0.5 |
| Pennsylvania | 6 | 13.0 | 0.5 |
| New York | 10 | 19.5 | 0.5 |
| Virginia | 5 | 8.7 | 0.6 |
| South Carolina | 3 | 5.3 | 0.6 |
| North Carolina | 8 | 10.8 | 0.7 |
| Illinois | 9 | 12.5 | 0.7 |
| Arizona | 6 | 7.4 | 0.8 |
| Connecticut | 3 | 3.6 | 0.8 |
| Tennessee | 6 | 7.1 | 0.8 |
Case Study: California
California illustrates the continuum gap at its most extreme. The state has invested significantly in emergency shelter infrastructure—79 programs across the state—and is home to major anti-trafficking organizations, a state task force, and robust law enforcement efforts. By many measures, California is a leader in the anti-trafficking space.
But the pipeline breaks after shelter. Only 13 transitional housing programs exist statewide for a population of 38.9 million—a ratio of 6.1:1 and a per capita rate of just 0.3 programs per million residents. A survivor leaving a Los Angeles emergency shelter who needs transitional housing is competing for an extraordinarily limited number of beds spread across the entire state.
This is not a failure of intent. California has built the crisis response infrastructure. What it has not built is the recovery infrastructure that makes crisis response meaningful in the long term.
What Works: States with Near Parity
Eleven states have achieved a ratio below 1.5:1, meaning their transitional housing capacity nearly matches or exceeds their emergency shelter capacity. These states demonstrate that the gap is not inevitable—it is a policy choice.
Florida leads the nation in absolute capacity: 182 emergency shelters and 112 transitional housing programs (1.6:1). The state’s layered approach—with state-level coordination, county-level programs, and dedicated trafficking-specific services—ensures that survivors have a far clearer path from crisis to stability than in most states.
Vermont has 15 emergency shelters and 10 transitional housing programs (1.5:1)—well below the national average of 2.4:1—demonstrating that even smaller states can build meaningful recovery capacity through deliberate investment.
Wisconsin is one of only two states where transitional housing programs outnumber emergency shelters (21 shelters, 29 TH programs—a 0.7:1 ratio), reflecting a deliberate investment in long-term recovery capacity.
West Virginia has 32 shelters and 24 TH programs (1.3:1), with 20 of those TH programs specifically serving trafficking survivors—one of the highest concentrations of trafficking-specific transitional housing in the country.
The pattern in every one of these states is state-level coordination and a decision to actually fund what comes after shelter.
Recommendations
1. Prioritize transitional housing investment in the 12 critical-gap states. Oregon, Virginia, California, Georgia, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Connecticut, South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania all have ratios of 4:1 or higher. Emergency shelter capacity in these states already exists—what is missing is the next step. Federal and state housing funds should be directed toward closing this specific gap.
2. Target large-population states with the lowest per capita TH rates. California (0.3 per million), Ohio (0.3), Georgia (0.5), Pennsylvania (0.5), and New York (0.5) serve tens of millions of residents with single-digit transitional housing programs. Even modest investments in these states would dramatically improve outcomes.
3. Adopt trafficking-specific transitional housing standards. Many existing transitional housing programs were built for domestic violence or general homelessness. Trafficking survivors have distinct needs: longer stays, legal help for T-visa and VAWA cases, specialized trauma treatment, and safety planning against organized networks.
4. Establish state-level continuum of care coordination. Florida’s investment in both shelter and transitional capacity is not accidental—it reflects deliberate state-level coordination. States should designate a single agency responsible for ensuring that shelter exits do not become dead ends.
5. Fund transitional housing with the same urgency as emergency shelter. Emergency shelters receive attention because the need is visible and immediate. Transitional housing serves a need that is quieter but no less critical. A survivor who re-enters trafficking six months after leaving a shelter represents a systemic failure, not a personal one.
Two Gaps, One Broken System
The continuum of care gap documented in this report does not exist in isolation. CTA’s analysis of the full survivor pathway identifies two structural failures that compound each other. The first is the hotline gap: 22 states have no dedicated human trafficking hotline, meaning a survivor who calls for help in those states reaches a domestic violence or general crisis line staffed by people not trained for trafficking-specific needs, legal complexity, or safety planning against organized networks. The second is the housing gap documented here: 12 states have a ratio of 4:1 or higher between emergency shelters and transitional housing programs, and 24 states have a ratio of at least 2.5:1.
These two gaps represent the two points at which the system is most likely to lose a survivor. The first is the moment they reach out for help and find someone unprepared to assist them. The second is the moment their emergency shelter stay ends and there is nowhere for them to go next. Several states appear in both lists. A survivor in those states faces both dead ends in sequence.
When the primary national reporting resource is unavailable or inadequate, survivors and the educators, social workers, and community members trying to help them have other pathways: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) at 1-866-347-2423, which maintains dedicated anti-trafficking units with federal jurisdiction; the FBI via tips.fbi.gov for cases crossing state lines or involving organized networks; local law enforcement for immediate danger; and NCMEC’s CyberTipline for online exploitation involving minors. But none of these pathways replace the need for a trained, state-level hotline that knows the local landscape, speaks the community’s languages, and can connect a survivor with a specific shelter bed in a specific county tonight.
The counter-trafficking field has invested heavily in awareness, in training, and in crisis response. What it has not built at sufficient scale is the infrastructure that converts awareness into action and crisis response into lasting recovery. The hotline gap and the housing gap are both symptoms of the same failure: we built the front door, and in too many states, we did not build anything behind it.
Closing
The counter-trafficking field has made significant progress in building crisis response capacity. Emergency shelters exist in every state. Hotlines connect survivors with immediate help. Law enforcement task forces pursue traffickers. But the system is only as strong as its weakest link, and right now, the weakest link is what happens after the crisis is over.
A 30-day shelter stay does not undo years of exploitation. A survivor needs time, stability, and support to rebuild a life—and in 24 states, the infrastructure to provide that does not exist at adequate scale. The continuum of care gap is not a secondary issue. It is the issue that determines whether every other investment in anti-trafficking work produces lasting results or temporary reprieves.
Methodology
This analysis reviewed emergency shelter and transitional housing data for all 50 states, catalogued in CTA’s verified resource database. Emergency shelter programs include crisis shelters, safe houses, and emergency housing operated by domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking-specific organizations. Transitional housing programs include all housing programs offering stays of 90 days or longer with wraparound services. Ratios were calculated as emergency shelter programs divided by transitional housing programs. Per capita rates use 2024 U.S. Census population estimates. Data current as of June 2026.