California’s struggle with homelessness needs congressional help

The latest Annual Homelessness Assessment Report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said that 653,100 people experienced homelessness on a single night in January, a 12% increase since last year. California counted 181,399 homeless people, the most of any state.

These numbers are devastating but expected.

Years of research, including efforts from UC San Francisco Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, show homelessness rates are tied to the disconnect between income and housing costs for the lowest-income households. California has only 24 units of housing available and affordable for every 100 extremely low-income households.

At the pandemic’s outset in 2020, fears that homelessness would increase dramatically due to economic disruptions led to the federal government releasing unprecedented levels of emergency funding. These included rental assistance, stimulus payments, unemployment assistance and enhanced tax credits for families. Combined with eviction moratoria, these fended off major surges.

But, by early 2023, these expired while incomes for low-income households remained flat, and rents and other essential costs rose. The floodgates opened, leaving the country with historic levels of homelessness.

The visible crisis in our streets is distressing. The public questions why, in the face of enormous local and state investments, homelessness continues to increase.

Between 2018-2021, California invested $9.6 billion in programs to expand affordable housing and invest in programs to serve those experiencing homelessness. The Homekey program has allocated almost $2 billion to create nearly 7,000 homes since 2021. Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara County utilize local tax measures to fund affordable housing and homeless services.

Why is this not enough?

Much of this is one-time funding, which doesn’t provide ongoing support to maintain extremely low-income individuals in housing. Traditionally, ongoing support for housing has come from the federal government.

But during the 1980s, federal investments for affordable housing dropped 75% and never recovered. The majority of federally funded rental support comes through housing vouchers, for people to use in the private market.

But demand outstrips supply, and only 1 in 4 households who qualify receive them. In October, the San Francisco Housing Authority opened the waitlist for the first time in nearly a decade and  about 60,000 households signed up for a lottery to win one of 6,500 spots on the waitlist.

This has forced local governments to use general funds to cover rental subsidies long after individuals have exited homelessness.

There have been bright spots, however. During the pandemic, the infusion of federal funding forestalled a catastrophic rise in homelessness. Over the past decade, homelessness among veterans has decreased by more than half, due in large part to dedicated federal funding.

Houston has been praised for its success at reducing homelessness by two-thirds. One reason has been its ability to use infusions of federal dollars — including COVID-19 funds — to house its homeless population.

To be sure, increasing federal funding alone will not solve the country’s homelessness crisis. The most successful efforts have required extraordinary coordination between funding agencies, decision-making bodies and service providers.

Another key element is zoning reform. Local officials control zoning, which plays a huge role in the creation of sufficient housing. The state has made strides in recent years, but without dramatic increases in housing supply, subsidies alone won’t solve the problem.