- “Housing-first works, but it cannot succeed on temporary funding streams.” – The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County
For years, Houston has been hailed as the nation’s leading model for reducing homelessness. Through a coordinated, housing-first strategy that emphasized permanent supportive housing over criminalization, the city achieved results that seemed almost impossible elsewhere.
Between 2011 and 2020, Houston cut its homeless population by more than half. Unlike other major metropolitan areas where encampments spread and point-in-time counts continued to rise, Houston’s numbers went down — a rare success story in an era of deepening housing inequality.
But according to a report in Smart Cities Dive, the latest data suggest that even the most celebrated local strategies are fragile when federal funding disappears and housing affordability erodes. The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County reported in its 2025 count that homelessness in Houston rose for the first time in years.
The increase was modest in absolute terms — 45 more people, bringing the total to 3,325 — but the composition of that population tells a more troubling story.
The number of unsheltered individuals grew by nearly 16%, and chronic homelessness rose from 29% to 44% in a single year.
Chronic homelessness, by definition, refers to people with disabilities who have been unhoused for at least a year, often cycling through jails, hospitals, and streets. That surge indicates the system is struggling to keep its most vulnerable population stably housed.
Mayor John Whitmire, who earlier this year launched the Initiative to End Street Homelessness Fund, acknowledged the challenge while defending Houston’s approach.
“I have always believed there was an undercount of unhoused individuals on the street,” he said. “Homelessness is a national problem that we are addressing locally. We are making progress, and the challenges would be worse” without the initiative.
The fund set a $70 million goal to expand permanent supportive housing and shelter capacity, but, as of May, it remained $40 million short.
The Coalition for the Homeless was blunt in its explanation for the uptick: the expiration of federal COVID relief dollars and reduced shelter capacity in 2024.
“Without sufficient capacity and permanent housing flow, street homelessness grows,” the organization stated. That warning is not unique to Houston — it is a national lesson.
Housing-first, permanent supportive housing, and coordinated entry systems are proven strategies. They work when resourced. Houston demonstrated that.
But the gains are not self-sustaining without a steady pipeline of affordable housing and long-term federal support.
During the pandemic, emergency aid plugged the holes — keeping people in housing, funding rapid rehousing programs, and increasing shelter space. But when those dollars expired, the system buckled.
This is where California should be paying close attention.
California has the largest homeless population in the country — more than 180,000 people in 2024, representing nearly a third of the national total.
Unlike Houston, California has never achieved sustained reductions. Instead, its numbers have trended upward, even amid massive state spending.
Governor Gavin Newsom and the Legislature have invested billions in Project Homekey, encampment resolution grants, and affordable housing initiatives. Yet point-in-time counts show persistent increases, particularly in unsheltered homelessness.
California’s challenge is even steeper than Houston’s. Housing costs are far higher, zoning restrictions and local resistance limit affordable housing construction, and state-level programs remain subject to annual budget negotiations.
At the same time, the Grants Pass Supreme Court ruling in 2024 fundamentally changed the legal landscape.
The Court allowed cities to criminalize sleeping outdoors even when no shelter is available, overturning a Ninth Circuit precedent that had limited enforcement. In California, where encampments are highly visible and politically explosive, the ruling has emboldened cities to adopt punitive measures rather than expand housing options.
This is the precise opposite of the lesson from Houston. Criminalization does not reduce homelessness; it merely pushes people from one sidewalk to another, often deepening cycles of instability. Houston’s long-term gains were built on rejecting criminalization and instead investing in permanent supportive housing. But even Houston is now faltering because those investments were not matched by long-term federal commitments.
If Houston — the model city — is struggling, what hope does California have?
The answer depends on whether policymakers take the right lessons from Houston’s setback.
First, housing-first works, but it cannot succeed on temporary funding streams. California’s current approach relies too heavily on one-time budget surpluses and emergency funds. When the state faces a deficit, as it has in recent years, programs stall. That volatility undermines the continuity required to sustain housing-first systems. Houston’s experience shows that as soon as the flow of permanent housing stalls, street homelessness rebounds. California must treat permanent supportive housing as infrastructure, no less essential than roads or schools, with dedicated, ongoing funding.
Second, the state cannot solve homelessness without federal partnership. HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants and housing vouchers remain the backbone of the national response, but they have not scaled to match the crisis. During COVID, federal emergency dollars allowed cities to act boldly — leasing hotels, expanding shelter space, funding rapid rehousing. Once that money vanished, even the strongest systems strained. California’s political leaders should press Washington, not just for emergency appropriations but also for permanent increases in HUD funding, targeted to permanent supportive housing and affordable construction.
Third, California must resist the temptation to lean into enforcement strategies now legally sanctioned by the Supreme Court. The Grants Pass decision may make it easier politically to clear encampments and arrest unhoused people, but the evidence is clear: it does not work. It clogs courts and jails, wastes taxpayer money, and worsens health and housing outcomes. Houston proved that investment in housing-first solutions reduces homelessness. California risks doubling down on failed punitive approaches precisely as the evidence shows the need for more housing, not more handcuffs.
Finally, affordability remains the elephant in the room. Houston’s own housing market is far less expensive than California’s, yet its renters are increasingly cost-burdened, with 51% paying more than 30% of their income toward rent and more than a quarter paying over half. In California, those numbers are worse. Until wages rise and the supply of affordable housing grows, homelessness will remain a structural inevitability.
Houston’s setback is not evidence that housing-first has failed. It is evidence that housing-first cannot run on fumes. For California, the lesson is urgent: if a city that coordinated its response better than almost anyone else can still backslide when funding evaporates, then California’s fragile progress is even more at risk.
What Houston shows us is that homelessness is not solved by good local management alone. It is a national crisis that requires national commitment. Without sustained federal investment, California will continue to cycle through the same pattern — high-profile initiatives, temporary reductions, and eventual backsliding. The alternative is a genuine, long-term partnership to treat housing as a right and homelessness as a solvable problem.
Until then, Houston’s warning should echo loudly in California: progress is possible, but without permanent housing flow and federal support, the system will fail — and people will pay the price on the streets.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
