Case study Los Angeles: Why the Housing First strategy failed miserably in addressing homelessness

In 2016, 77 percent of Los Angeles voters approved a $1.2 billion bond for the construction of 10,000 units that were supposed to help solve the city’s homelessness crisis. It was the vanguard of the “Housing First” approach policy that became popular with many California metro areas, including Santa Clara County. It has been a bust, explains Christopber Rufo in National Review.

Five years ago, influential Los Angeles leaders claimed that rising rents had thrown people onto the streets and that by providing free “permanent supportive housing,” cities could reduce the number of people on the streets.

In the years since, “Housing First” has taken even greater hold around the West Coast, as cities including Seattle and San Francisco are preparing to commit billions of dollars to a program whose track record remains woefully underexamined. 

But the project has been plagued by construction delays, massive cost overruns, and accusations of corruption. The Los Angeles city controller issued a scathing report, “The High Cost of Homeless Housing,” which shows that some studio and one-bedroom apartments were costing taxpayers more than $700,000 each, with 40 percent of total costs devoted to consultants, lawyers, fees, and permitting. The project is a boon for real-estate developers and a constellation of nonprofits and service providers, but a boondoggle for taxpayers. Meanwhile, unsheltered homelessness has increased 41 percent. Even if one accepts that permanent supportive housing is the solution, there are currently more than 66,000 homeless people in Los Angeles County.

Political leaders, activists, and academics have insisted that Housing First is an “evidence-based” intervention that reduces homelessness, saves taxpayer money, and improves lives. Supporters frequently argue that the program reduced costs in a study of chronic alcoholics in Seattle, consistently demonstrates high retention rates in multiple academic surveys, and eliminated chronic homelessness in Utah.

These studies, however, are not as persuasive as activists suggest. Although the study of chronic alcoholics in Seattle does show a net reduction in monthly social service costs of $2,449 per person, this figure does not include $11 million in capital and construction costs for the housing units themselves; in other words, Housing First saves money if the cost of housing is not included.

This article originally appeared in the National Review. Read the whole thing here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity