It has been proven time and time again in study after study that when someone who has been in an unstable housing situation is given a place to rest their head, store their clothes, shower and cook for themselves — a home that is theirs and where they don’t have to worry about where they are going to sleep in a few hours — many good things follow.
Yet, good people in our communities continue to believe that our homeless community members should exist somewhere else … or not at all. Well, they’re here. And the size of this population is growing. Seniors 60+ represent 31% of the population, under 18 are 10% of the group. Veterans who fought to defend our nation? That’s 7% of our homeless community. Half are white, another 25% are Hispanic. Nearly one-third are families with children. From a health standpoint, 30% have chronic health conditions, 25% have diagnosed mental health conditions and 20% have issues related to substance abuse. Almost 25% of our unhomed community is employed. These are duplicated data points, so an individual can count for multiple categories.
The 2023 homeless count for San Mateo County showed an 18% increase year over year, representing just over 2,000 people experiencing homelessness here. Of that population, a little over half were living outside of a shelter, including living on the streets, in cars, RVs or tents. This represented a 5% increase over 2022.
Part of my work on the Housing and Community Development Committee with San Mateo County for the past five years has been to review community services funding requests to support a wide diversity of programs targeting at-risk populations here. These are services to support people escaping from domestic violence, seeking immediate temporary and long-term shelter, seeking to perform important shelter updates in older structures, supporting emergency services for underserved community members, funding crisis management and prevention, and more. Every funding cycle, the demand always outweighs the available funds.
In the One Day Homeless Count report from May 2024, 222 people were sleeping on our streets and 77 people were sleeping in tents or makeshift shelters. Can we not as a community come together and find stable housing for 299 people?
After seeing successful programs in other states and countries prove that stable housing is an important foundation for people to build their lives on top of, I am a believer in the “housing first” movement.
The Pathways to Housing program out of New York City first launched in 1992, focusing on providing immediate access to permanent housing with no preconditions like getting clean or entering a treatment program. It focused on housing people who were chronically homeless with mental health or substance abuse issues. After the first five years, people in the program were retaining their housing at a rate of 80%, which is significantly higher than traditional “treatment-first” approaches of 30%-50%. Additionally, the program saved the public system over $16,000 per person annually in costs for hospitalizations, shelter stays and emergency room visits.
Recommended for you
The Denver Housing First Collaborative program first began in 2003 and prioritizes stable housing before addressing other issues like unemployment or substance abuse. After the program’s first two years, 43% of participants had gained and held employment.
Beginning in 2006 in North Carolina, the Homeward Bound, Asheville program focused on chronically homeless individuals receiving permanent housing and support services. Within the first year of receiving stable housing, employment rates increased 30% among program participants.
Internationally, Finland’s Housing First Model launched in 1995 and rolled out nationwide in 2008. Within two years of being housed, 40% of participants secured employment or entered vocational training. As well, 60%-70% of program participants maintained their jobs after one year. Chronic homelessness has decreased by 35%, and the public cost savings is approximately 15,000 euro per person annually.
Canada’s At Home/Chez Soi Project launched in 2009 and targeted homeless people with mental health challenges. After one year, program participants had a 65% employment retention rate and after two years, 70% of participants remained housed (as compared to 30% in the control group). Public cost savings is around $21,000 per person annually.
Back at home, approximately 63% of our community’s homeless population say that lack of affordable housing was the primary reason they became homeless: 19% lost their job, 15% were evicted, 8% are homeless due to internal family conflict, 6% are due to domestic violence. Substance abuse led to homelessness for 13%.
Some of these problems are fixable, but the will to fix them needs to be there. Across the U.S. general population, employee retention sits at around 65%-70% for roles in the mean wage range and lower. Should we help 299 people find homes with a 60%-80% success rate of maintaining job stability after two years? As a numbers person, the investment looks sound.
Annie Tsai is chief operating officer at Interact (tryinteract.com), early stage investor and advisor with The House Fund (thehouse.fund), and a member of the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Committee. Find Annie on Twitter @meannie.
Annie - thank you for your informational column. I have a few questions. First, should we place a border around our County so that we don't end up with homeless folks from surrounding areas? Second, if job loss is a reason, why don't these individuals move to an area where there is employment and less expensive housing? Third, why would the County be held responsible for poor decisions made by parties in the cases of domestic violence and abuse? What happened to personal responsibility? And fourth, advertising our generosity will only attract more homeless individuals. Why are many counties and cities run by conservative leadership not overwhelmed with that festering issue? In any case, all of the support should have a limit and a sunset. That is the policy in the European nations that you appear to emulate. Have you looked at all into the disappearance of the generous funding for the homeless? It is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars per year but we see nothing but an increased demand. Before we even contemplate funding we should get an accounting of where and how the current funding is being spent. Throwing out statistics does not portray the whole picture.
60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck in 2024, an increase form 50% last year. The problem is pervasive and unfortunately moving somewhere else does not necessarily afford a job, but it does likely reduce wages. I would also consider that as a nation we have built our entire infrastructure around symptom management vs root cause management. Everything is designed to stop acute and immediate pains, and the actual root cause is so far away from when symptoms arise that it’s almost unbelievable that this is the thing that is the problem. The reality is that 800 words will never tell a whole picture of anything, it can only serve to be a thought provoker and hopefully a catalyst. I have a lot of questions too.
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Tsai, but your numbers aren’t completely adding up. Near the beginning, you say the 2023 homeless count is just over 2,000 people and later, you report and want to find housing for 299 people. What happened to the remaining just over 1,700 people that were homeless? Have they been housed? You also report on successful programs from a number of other states and countries but it sounds like they may have started out well for the first few years but how about since 2020 or 2023? Are they still successful? Also, how does the cost of living affect their numbers compared to the cost of living in the Bay Area? Regardless, if we’re looking to house only 299 people then why can’t we ask people who are sympathetic to the homeless open up their homes? Perhaps government officials and residents who want to house folks in a hotel in Millbrae? If these folks set an example perhaps others may follow. Or are these folks the ones who believe our homeless folks should exist somewhere else, as long as it isn’t their home?
Hello! There is a link to the SMDJ article on the report in the text, https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/county-s-homeless-population-up-18-since-2022/article_938217d4-1e26-11ef-a86e-930c4a4eeed8.html
But also here is the report itself where you can read the numbers. https://www.smcgov.org/media/149456/download?inline=
Thank you for your LTE, this proves that the government needs to get out of the way. The government wasted $20 billion which had been confiscated from hardworking and responsible Californian’s. Governor Newsom oddly enough handed out blank checks to cities and counties throughout California to combat the homeless problem, yet he wasn’t smart enough to require accountability or positive results. When it was pointed out that $20 billion had been wasted, Governor Newsom threw a tantrum and blamed the cities. I doubt giving the government additional money is going to change things. Raising the minimum wage for fast food, workers isn’t going to change things either. It’s time to remove the democrat party from making any further decisions.
There is the moral question of so many with so much while others do not even have a place to lay their head at night, but we do need to analyze what works best for solutions. I appreciate all of the examples you give of why housing the unhoused is fiscally sound. There are people who prefer to blame the homeless rather than do something, the doing of which might require analysis of what works and what doesn't.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(8) comments
Annie - thank you for your informational column. I have a few questions. First, should we place a border around our County so that we don't end up with homeless folks from surrounding areas? Second, if job loss is a reason, why don't these individuals move to an area where there is employment and less expensive housing? Third, why would the County be held responsible for poor decisions made by parties in the cases of domestic violence and abuse? What happened to personal responsibility? And fourth, advertising our generosity will only attract more homeless individuals. Why are many counties and cities run by conservative leadership not overwhelmed with that festering issue? In any case, all of the support should have a limit and a sunset. That is the policy in the European nations that you appear to emulate. Have you looked at all into the disappearance of the generous funding for the homeless? It is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars per year but we see nothing but an increased demand. Before we even contemplate funding we should get an accounting of where and how the current funding is being spent. Throwing out statistics does not portray the whole picture.
60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck in 2024, an increase form 50% last year. The problem is pervasive and unfortunately moving somewhere else does not necessarily afford a job, but it does likely reduce wages. I would also consider that as a nation we have built our entire infrastructure around symptom management vs root cause management. Everything is designed to stop acute and immediate pains, and the actual root cause is so far away from when symptoms arise that it’s almost unbelievable that this is the thing that is the problem. The reality is that 800 words will never tell a whole picture of anything, it can only serve to be a thought provoker and hopefully a catalyst. I have a lot of questions too.
Thanks for your letter, Ms. Tsai, but your numbers aren’t completely adding up. Near the beginning, you say the 2023 homeless count is just over 2,000 people and later, you report and want to find housing for 299 people. What happened to the remaining just over 1,700 people that were homeless? Have they been housed? You also report on successful programs from a number of other states and countries but it sounds like they may have started out well for the first few years but how about since 2020 or 2023? Are they still successful? Also, how does the cost of living affect their numbers compared to the cost of living in the Bay Area? Regardless, if we’re looking to house only 299 people then why can’t we ask people who are sympathetic to the homeless open up their homes? Perhaps government officials and residents who want to house folks in a hotel in Millbrae? If these folks set an example perhaps others may follow. Or are these folks the ones who believe our homeless folks should exist somewhere else, as long as it isn’t their home?
Hello! There is a link to the SMDJ article on the report in the text, https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/county-s-homeless-population-up-18-since-2022/article_938217d4-1e26-11ef-a86e-930c4a4eeed8.html
But also here is the report itself where you can read the numbers. https://www.smcgov.org/media/149456/download?inline=
"Thanks for your Column" She is a columnist.
Thank you for your LTE, this proves that the government needs to get out of the way. The government wasted $20 billion which had been confiscated from hardworking and responsible Californian’s. Governor Newsom oddly enough handed out blank checks to cities and counties throughout California to combat the homeless problem, yet he wasn’t smart enough to require accountability or positive results. When it was pointed out that $20 billion had been wasted, Governor Newsom threw a tantrum and blamed the cities. I doubt giving the government additional money is going to change things. Raising the minimum wage for fast food, workers isn’t going to change things either. It’s time to remove the democrat party from making any further decisions.
Looks like the author wrote a Column not a LTE.
There is the moral question of so many with so much while others do not even have a place to lay their head at night, but we do need to analyze what works best for solutions. I appreciate all of the examples you give of why housing the unhoused is fiscally sound. There are people who prefer to blame the homeless rather than do something, the doing of which might require analysis of what works and what doesn't.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.