California Should End 'Housing First' and Shift Resources to Temporary Shelter and Treatment-Linked Programs
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "At Last, Officials Question ‘Housing First’ | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." October 29, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that California's 'Housing First' policy, which gives homeless people permanent housing with no conditions, doesn't fit a population where most people struggle with addiction or mental illness. It is also too expensive and slow. He thinks cheaper temporary shelters tied to treatment deserve the money, and likely deserve credit for the recent drop in homelessness.
Conclusion
California should end its reliance on the Housing First model of permanent supportive housing and redirect resources to temporary shelter, treatment-oriented campuses, and encampment clearing, which the author believes are the programs that actually work.
Premises
- Most chronically homeless people have serious mental illness and/or substance abuse problems (the UCLA study cited by the Cicero Institute finds about 75% for each), so a lack of housing is not their only problem.
- Housing First attaches no requirements such as sobriety, treatment, or work, and people reluctant to accept help without requirements will not use services under a no-strings model.
- Permanent supportive housing is too costly and slow to solve the problem: it often costs nearly $1 million per unit, takes years to permit and build, and carries funding strings that raise costs, so a few thousand units cannot meet demand.
- Housing First may attract people from outside the homeless system or keep them in it because of the promise of permanent, rent-free housing, and it has led places to de-emphasize short-term shelter.
- Cheaper temporary shelter, tiny-house communities, and campuses with wraparound services (as in San Antonio and Sacramento County) move people off the streets faster and at lower cost, and rarely require coercion.
- California's recent decline in unsheltered homelessness (nearly 13% since 2024) more plausibly reflects its investments in temporary housing and treatment and its requirement that localities clear encampments than its permanent apartment building.
Assumptions
- Because most chronically homeless people have mental illness or addiction, treatment requirements or strong encouragement are necessary for success.
- Housing First as practiced in California is accurately characterized as having no conditions and no emphasis on short-term shelter.
- The recent decline in homelessness is caused by temporary shelter, treatment, and encampment clearing rather than by Housing First or other factors.
- Resources are zero-sum, so money spent on permanent supportive housing necessarily reduces money available for more effective programs.
- Cost per unit and slow construction timelines are representative of permanent supportive housing generally.
- Success of small-scale or local programs (San Antonio, a Sacramento tiny-house community) can scale to California's 180,000 homeless people.