In the heart of America’s ongoing struggle with homelessness, the story of an individual named Murray Barr serves as a poignant case study. Over the course of a decade, Murray’s life embodied the grim realities faced by many chronic homeless individuals. His journey through addiction treatment, hospital visits, and jail time culminated in over a million dollars spent on taxpayer-funded services. This staggering sum highlights a critical gap in our approach to homelessness: while many individuals experience temporary hardship, a smaller subset grapples with chronic homelessness, often exacerbated by drug dependency and serious health issues.
The disconcerting truth is that this group has reached an all-time high since the inception of the Point-in-Time (PIT) counts in 2007. In light of the considerable administrative costs associated with chronic homelessness, a consensus is forming among policymakers across the political spectrum: investing in permanent housing solutions is more cost-effective than perpetuating the cycle of temporary shelters and emergency services. Enter the Housing First model—a proposed remedy for the crisis that has gained traction in recent years.
Housing First is a revolutionary approach that diverges sharply from traditional “treatment first” programs. Instead of imposing prerequisites such as sobriety or employment, it offers permanent, publicly funded housing as a first step. This model, championed by Sam Tsemberis and established through Pathways Housing First in 1992, has been touted as the most equitable response to homelessness, receiving the federal government’s endorsement as a viable solution. The Biden-Harris Administration has taken a bold stance on this initiative, launching the All In federal strategic plan in 2022, which aims to reduce homelessness by 25% by 2025, with Housing First as its cornerstone.
Proponents of Housing First often point to success stories from states like Utah, New Orleans, and Houston to bolster their argument. Utah, once celebrated for a 91% reduction in chronic homelessness, has since faced a 96% increase since 2016, revealing that the earlier successes were partially attributable to changes in counting methodologies rather than effective policy. Similarly, New Orleans’ reported 90% reduction in chronic homelessness must be viewed in the context of recovery from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, raising questions about the actual impact of Housing First policies.
Houston, however, presents a somewhat different narrative. In 2011, the city was grappling with one of the largest homeless populations in the United States. Through a coordinated effort known as The Way Home, Houston implemented the Housing First model and saw a remarkable 63% reduction in its homeless population over the next decade. As of 2024, the city has housed over 32,000 individuals, demonstrating that initial successes can indeed be achieved through effective policy and collaboration.
What sets Houston apart from other cities is its approach to the underlying issue of affordable housing. As Glenn Bailey of the Salt Lake City food bank aptly noted, “If you don’t change the reasons people become homeless in the first place, you’re just going to have more people on the streets.” The stark reality is that no state in the U.S. has an adequate supply of affordable housing for the lowest-income renters, with an estimated shortage of 7.3 million affordable rental homes nationwide. Rising housing costs have devastated low-income households, and studies indicate that excessive land-use regulations play a significant role in this crisis.
Zoning laws, which often limit the development of multi-family housing, hinder the production of affordable options. Research from the Council of Economic Advisers suggests that relaxing restrictive zoning practices in just 11 major metropolitan areas could lead to a 13% reduction in homelessness nationwide. Houston’s lack of rent control and its permissive land-use regulations have allowed it to build over 25,000 townhouses since reforming its zoning laws in 1998, facilitating a more efficient response to housing needs.
While the Housing First model has its merits, the associated costs can be substantial. However, when compared to the fragmented care that individuals like Murray experience, it becomes evident that investing in permanent housing could ultimately be more economical. The literature surrounding Permanent Housing and the positive health outcomes for recipients underscores the importance of addressing housing as a fundamental human right—but we must also confront the root cause of the crisis: the insufficient supply of affordable housing.
If the federal government is earnest about continuing its Housing First agenda, it must also commit to removing regulatory barriers that inhibit the construction of affordable units. The reality is that investing millions in public services to manage the consequences of homelessness will often surpass the cost of providing stable housing. Thus, the path forward is clear: to truly make a difference, we must not only offer homes but also ensure they are affordable and accessible to all.
