Early polling suggested that Gov. Newsom’s Proposition One, which aimed to add $6.4 billion in debt to fund housing and mental health beds for the chronically homeless, would easily pass. However, nearly half of voters saw through the deception, giving the governor a close call. This may signal a shift away from the “Housing First” approach.
Proposition One sounded compassionate at first glance, but upon closer inspection of its 68-page details, it became clear that it required housing interventions to adhere to the core components of Housing First. Despite Newsom’s efforts to present the measure as a game-changer, the opposition, with minimal funding, nearly thwarted its passage.
Some voters rejected the idea of accumulating more bond debt, while others may have grown weary of empty promises. It appears that many California voters have lost faith in Newsom’s ability to address homelessness effectively, especially considering his long-standing promises that have yet to be fulfilled since his time as mayor of San Francisco.
The Housing First approach, adopted by both federal and state governments, has not shown significant progress in reducing homelessness since its implementation in 2013. Funding for clinical services and employment training has been reduced in favor of providing vouchers for permanent housing, without requiring sobriety, chores, or work participation.
Despite these efforts, homelessness in California has reached record highs, with the state now accounting for a significant portion of the nation’s homeless population. As someone who has worked directly with homeless women and children in Sacramento for over a decade, the author would have voted against Proposition One.
The author highlights the complex challenges faced by the homeless population, including mental illness and addiction, which often hinder their ability to engage in services even when housed. A study of chronically homeless individuals in Boston showed that providing housing without required services led to high rates of recidivism and homelessness.
In contrast, the author’s program required clients to engage in clinical services, leading to positive outcomes such as employment and homeownership within 18 months for many. This approach emphasizes the importance of providing support services alongside housing to address the root causes of homelessness.
While Proposition One narrowly passed in California, the close margin suggests a growing dissatisfaction with the Housing First approach. The author argues that simply providing more housing without addressing underlying issues is not a sustainable solution. The need for comprehensive services and conditions for housing remains essential in tackling the homelessness crisis effectively.
