Oregon’s Homeless Crisis: Why Current Strategies are Failing - Part 2
Last month, we launched a four-part series titled "Oregon’s Homeless Crisis: Why Current Strategies Are Failing." This series examines why current approaches have fallen short and explores solutions to address the crisis. Here’s a quick recap of the series:
Part 1: Oregon’s 2023 Homeless Report Card: Assessing Five Key Metrics
Part 2: The Misguided Link Between Housing and Homelessness
Part 3: The Overabundance of Compassionate Care Organizations
Part 4: The Lack of Accountability in Funding and Spending
In Part 1, we tackled two critical questions:
“After all this spending, how does Oregon compare to other states?”
“Are we making measurable progress in reducing homelessness?”
Unfortunately, the answers revealed deeply disappointing results. (Read the full post here.)
Today, in Part 2, we turn our attention to the Housing First philosophy. We’ll examine its influence and explore the reasons why it has failed to effectively address the homeless crisis. Let’s dive in.
Oregon’s Homeless Crisis: Why Current Strategies are Failing
Part 2 – A Misguided Connection Between Housing and Homelessness
So, this begs the question, “With all the money that has been spent on the homeless crisis, why do we have such abysmal results?” The answer lies in three core issues:
Reason #1 – Overemphasis on Expensive Affordable Housing
The widely embraced "Housing First" approach is fundamentally flawed. While its intentions are noble, it has failed to address the deeper, more complex causes of homelessness.
The Housing First Philosophy: A Misguided Solution
Introduced by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in 2005, Housing First assumes that homelessness stems from systemic inequality and economic hardship. Its model prioritizes providing free or heavily subsidized housing without requiring sobriety, employment, or participation in rehabilitation programs. Addiction and mental health treatment are strictly optional.
Advocates argue that the root cause of homelessness is a lack of affordable housing due to high rents and scarce availability of affordable single-family homes.
A Misguided Connection Between Housing and Homelessness
While Portland undeniably faces a housing affordability crisis, equating it with the homelessness crisis is a fundamental misstep. Rising housing costs and rising rents impact many residents, but the underlying causes of homelessness extend beyond affordability. Hope for the Homeless Foundation believes that housing affordability is not the primary driver of homelessness. So, what is?
According to Brandi Tuck, Executive Director of Path Home:
“You don’t become homeless when you run out of money. You become homeless when you run out of relationships.”
Homelessness often begins with the collapse of support systems. Addressing this requires far more than just handing out keys to an apartment.
The Real Drivers of Homelessness: Mental Health, Addiction and Unemployment
Homelessness is not primarily about housing—it’s about broken lives. Mental illness, substance abuse, and chronic unemployment are the top causes of homelessness in Portland, as identified by interviews by Hope for the Homeless Foundation with over 40 executive directors of nonprofits. Building expensive housing without addressing these root causes is like treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.
Why Building Affordable Housing Fails to Solve Homelessness
Three primary issues undermine the notion that affordable housing can address homelessness effectively:
It is prohibitively expensive.
It is seldom allocated to homeless individuals.
It fails to address root causes like addiction and mental health issues.
The Cost of Affordable Housing
Affordable housing projects in Portland are staggeringly expensive yet fail to serve those most in need. Consider these examples:
The average cost per unit for these seven properties is $629,000, which is 125% higher than Portland’s median single-family home price of $506,000. In contrast, some Portland apartments are priced at less than $200,000 per unit. Why are we paying luxury prices for subsidized housing? Affordable housing projects frequently come with steep price tags, consuming vast public resources while delivering relatively modest outcomes.
There is no evidence that any community can end homelessness by investing enough money in no-strings-attached affordable housing. Those jurisdictions who have enthusiastically adopted the Housing First philosophy have seen their homeless populations rise significantly.
From 2010 to 2020, homelessness rose 47 percent in New York City and 31 percent in California.9,10
After 18 years of implementing Housing First policies, the number of individuals in the U.S. experiencing homelessness in 2023 was 13 percent higher than in 2007.11
Affordable Housing is Rarely Used to House the Homeless
Affordable housing, despite its intent, rarely addresses the needs of the homeless population for three key reasons:
High Costs Lead to Scarcity
The exorbitant costs of constructing affordable housing results in a shortage of housing stock. Limited availability forces policymakers to prioritize who gets access. More often than not, affordable housing goes to low-income individuals or families who are at risk of homelessness but are still housed, rather than those currently living on the streets.Landlord Preferences Favor Stability
Property owners and landlords, understandably, prefer tenants who offer stability. A low-income wage earner with a history of paying rent is a safer bet than someone currently homeless, who may lack consistent income or face ongoing challenges such as substance abuse or mental health issues. This bias often excludes the homeless from affordable housing programs.Employment Requirements Create Barriers
Affordable housing programs require applicants to meet minimum income thresholds, effectively excluding many homeless individuals who lack stable employment. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) caps rents no greater than 30% of the median family income of the area. Under these guidelines a studio apartment in Portland last year could rent for $619 per month. Landlords are allowed to require applicants to show a monthly gross income equal to 2.5 times the rental amount. In this case, the minimum annual income to qualify for a studio apartment would be $619 per month x 12 months x 2.5 times = $18,570 to qualify. Few homeless individuals meet this threshold, leaving them ineligible.
Misalignment Between Affordable Housing and Homeless Needs
A critical question emerges: How many residents of newly constructed affordable housing were previously living on the streets? Based on the barriers above, the answer is likely very few. Studies back this up, such as research by Kevin Corinth in The Impact of Permanent Supportive Housing on Homeless Populations12 What is permanent supportive housing? It is affordable housing with long-term rental assistance coupled with case management services to assist renters in achieving housing stability. Corinth found that adding one permanent supportive housing (PSH) unit reduces homelessness by up to 0.10 individuals—essentially building ten units decreases the homeless count by roughly one person.
Why the gap? The remaining nine units likely go to the “housing insecure”—individuals who are one paycheck away from losing their housing but are not currently homeless. By this definition, roughly 40% of Americans could be considered housing insecure. While it’s important to support these individuals, calling these efforts “solutions to homelessness” is misleading.
The Reality: Affordable Housing Benefits the Poor, Not the Homeless
Affordable housing primarily serves low-income individuals and families rather than those living unsheltered. And that’s okay. We should be compassionate towards the poor, and subsidized housing plays a vital role in supporting vulnerable populations. However, conflating affordable housing with solutions to homelessness creates false expectations and misdirected policy.
Summary: Addressing Root Causes is Key
This misalignment is one reason why homelessness in Portland has continued to rise despite significant investments in affordable housing. Building expensive affordable housing without addressing the root causes of homelessness—mental illness, addiction, and chronic unemployment—cannot resolve the crisis. Housing First’s reliance on no-strings-attached subsidies has proven ineffective, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach. By focusing resources on treatment and support systems, Portland can better address the true drivers of homelessness and achieve meaningful progress.
Footnotes
8 Based on a random Google search of recently completed, underway or planned affordable housing properties in Multnomah, Washington & Clackamas counties.
9 Charting Homelessness in NYC, https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/for-the-public/charting-homelessness-in-nyc/overview/
10 Homelessness in California – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_California#:~:text=Between%202010%20and%202020%2C%20the,the%20rest%20of%20the%20country.
11 The 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress
12 ”The Impact of permanent supportive housing on homeless populations” by Kevin Corinth, Journal of Housing Economics, Volume 35, March 2017, pp. 69-84.
