Housing First.

In our final episode of 2024 I introduced five non-negotiables for the Left; five fundamental concepts that the left can rally behind in order to begin rebuilding meaningful coalitions. The idea is to generate a shared language around a handful of common goals that are unassailable and belong exclusively to the left—and to acknowledge the left is a healthy spectrum that celebrates diversity of opinion while maintaining defined core principles. These are issues that disappeared from the Democratic platform on the campaign trail and frankly haven’t been talked about since the Bernie campaign.

These non-negotiables are not only crucial to a humane and functioning society, they have the added benefit of being tested, empirical and really, really popular. To review, they are: Medicare for All, a government sponsored civilian labor corp, getting money out of politics, centering climate justice in all legislative discussions and, lastly, the topic for today: Housing First.

In the coming months we’re going to focus on these non-negotiables as we reach out to other prominent leftists to gain support for these ideas and carefully begin to add to the list. I chose to tackle housing and shelter first because of recent news from HUD and a bit of controversy surrounding it. So let’s go.

Chapter One: A Point in Time

Toward the end of 2024, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released its Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Part 1: Point-in-Time Estimates of Homelessness. The report provides a comprehensive overview of homelessness in the United States and it caused a momentary stir before our collective amnesia kicked in and we moved on to more acts of terrorism, the impending Trump inauguration, Presidential medals of freedom, year end lists and other mainstream media distractions. One of the stirs was among liberal media outlets from established ones like the New York Times to The Young Turks network, both of which used their platforms to highlight one particular aspect of the report—that immigration was one of the causes for the increase in homelessness year-over-year.

Before we get to that, however, let’s look at some of the key findings of the report.

• The number of people experiencing homelessness reached a record high of 771,480, or about 23 per 10,000 people in the U.S.
• Homelessness increased by 18% overall from 2023 to 2024.
• Family homelessness saw the largest increase, rising by 39% from the previous year.
• Nearly 150,000 children experienced homelessness, a 33% increase from 2023.
• Veterans were the only group to show a decline in homelessness, decreasing by 8% from 2023 to 2024.
• About one in five people experiencing homelessness was 55 or older.
• Black individuals continue to be overrepresented among the homeless population, making up 32% of all people experiencing homelessness.
• Chronic homelessness reached its highest recorded level, with 152,585 individuals experiencing chronic patterns of homelessness.
• The national inventory of beds for people experiencing homelessness increased by 13% between 2023 and 2024, driven mainly by an 18% increase in emergency shelter beds.
• Nearly 60% of the national bed inventory is now dedicated to permanent housing solutions for people formerly experiencing homelessness.

The report attributes these trends to factors such as the worsening affordable housing crisis, rising inflation, stagnating wages, systemic racism, public health crises, natural disasters, immigration, and the end of pandemic-era homelessness prevention programs.

The 771,000 figure is the highest number ever recorded since the government began tracking this data. The crisis has reached such proportions that even the typically measured language of government reports couldn’t mask the urgency. “Homelessness in America has risen to a crisis level,” declared HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge.

But these numbers, as shocking as they are, tell only part of the story. Behind each statistic is a human being—someone’s parent, child, sibling, or friend—struggling to survive in what remains the wealthiest nation in human history. The contradiction is stark: in a country with more billionaires than ever before, hundreds of thousands of people are sleeping in tents, under bridges, or in their cars. This is not a natural disaster or an inevitable outcome of market forces. It is, rather, a policy choice—or more accurately, a series of policy choices made over decades that have prioritized property values over human lives, ideology over evidence, and short-term political gains over long-term societal stability.

Here’s what makes these numbers even more concerning: they’re almost certainly an undercount. The Point-in-Time count, conducted on a single night, misses many people who might be temporarily staying with friends or family, living in motels, or sleeping in places not visible to counters. Moreover, the methodology itself has inherent limitations— it’s challenging to count people who, by necessity or choice, make themselves hard to find.

The real scale of housing insecurity in America is likely far greater. Millions more Americans are just one medical emergency, job loss, or rent increase away from losing their housing. This precarity isn’t accidental—it’s the predictable result of a system that treats housing as a commodity rather than a human right.

Chapter Two: Whether Building a Home or a Narrative, Framing Matters

Okay, so I originally dropped the five non-negotiables in an episode titled “The Online Left is Falling Apart,” where I argued that some so-called breadtubers had swallowed their values to promote the lesser of two evils position during the presidential campaign. Then there are outlets like The Young Turks (TYT) who appear to have pivoted to the right after the election. The point is not to pile on TYT but in the context of leftist principles generally and housing specifically, I am going to pick on them because of their role and status among left and liberal viewers.

Most people aren’t aware of the differences or arguments happening on the left, and if they are they probably don’t give a shit. But millions of people consume online leftist content so it’s important that we talk through these things with an open mind and heart. TYT has adopted the strategy of building bridges to the far right by appearing on shows like Glenn Beck and Tim Pool and even appearing on stage with the loathsome Charlie Kirk. The idea of building bridges to the far right rather than building a bulwark of beliefs on the left is where I think TYT has gone awry. So like I said, I’m not picking on them in particular as much as I’m using them to illustrate the point that we have a ton of work to do on the left to heal and coalesce, yes, but also to learn, grow and disseminate truths.

Here is a transcript of Ana Kasparian breaking down the HUD report:

Kasparian: “Much of the report actually focuses on one of the main factors behind this. So they talk about how the influx of asylum seekers immigrating to the country has exacerbated the housing crisis because we already had a housing crisis spurred by the shortage of housing units available. And so here’s what they found. Migration had a particularly notable impact on family homelessness, which rose 39% from 2023 to 2024. In the 13 communities that reported being affected by migration, family homelessness more than doubled. Whereas in the remaining 373 communities, the rise in families experiencing homelessness was less than 8%.

“So, I mean, this is, in my opinion, just simple numbers, logic, supply and demand. There was already high demand for limited housing units. And then you introduce an additional population into the country when you haven’t really increased the housing inventory. And it’s going to, again, exacerbate the problem. And so during the Biden administration, before he did his executive order for the southern border, he had paroled 1.4 million asylum seekers into the country. Obviously, that’s going to have an impact on homelessness when we don’t have enough housing to withstand the increase in population.”

There’s a lot here. And it really comes down to choices made on framing. TYT sets up the piece by offering the headline figures we noted before. But when it gets to dissecting the issue, they very narrowly focus on the issue of migration. I read the report and immigration is mentioned exactly five times and a sixth if you include a sentence about population expansion in sanctuary cities. It’s a 117 page report, mind you.

So let’s look at the framing around immigration. Ana rightly notes that homelessness doubled in 13 communities that reported being affected by migration. Then she compares this to the other 373 communities that experienced an 8% increase. To be clear, here’s her exact quote again:

“In the 13 communities that reported being affected by migration, family homelessness more than doubled. Whereas in the remaining 373 communities, the rise in families experiencing homelessness was less than 8%.”

Now, let’s approach those same figures in a different way.

Out of 385 communities reporting into HUD, only 13 stated that immigration was a primary driver of the increase in homelessness.

Makes a big difference, doesn’t it?

We did a three part series on the immigration crisis and at no time did I minimize the impact of immigration on the country.

In fact, the first in the series spoke to the disastrous effects of mass migration into urban areas like New York City and the overburdening of New York’s social services departments. In states like Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and California, the largest urban centers in the country are experiencing the multifaceted shock of a housing shortage, high interest rates, higher than normal housing price and rental inflation and mass migration, tipping these areas into crisis.

If you want to really dig into the utter tragedy and shame of homelessness, consider that across the board unaccompanied youth is back on the rise after declining for several years. According to HUD there are 38,000 unaccompanied children experiencing homelessness.

If anything, that’s the story. This is the ultimate national shame.

To focus the entire narrative on immigration is a bad faith approach to the crisis. Immigration is a complicated layer on top of an already desperate situation; one that we have few answers to currently, and on the eve of another Trump term probably even less so in the coming years.

The reporting organizations are classified in the report as Continuums of Care (CoCs). These are organizations that coordinate local, state and federal solutions to manage services from food and shelter to navigating health systems and veteran’s care. Some are affiliated with religious organizations and others are non-profits and government service agencies.

Once a year they come together to conduct this “point in time” count of unhoused individuals and families. So it’s important to note that these data are from last January, so these benchmark numbers are always in retrospect. Something to keep in mind as we parse the data. Let’s actually speak to some nuance in the reporting to appreciate the scope and difficulty of acquiring this information.

CoCs have gotten much better over the years in aggregating these figures. We’ve also expanded the number of shelter beds available in the nation. That’s an important aspect to this because remember that there are still many more people who are living out of sight in tent cities and encampments, motels or with family members that don’t make the count. So the numbers naturally increase if we have more beds and people can find shelter in them. Then again, if they’re at capacity and people are resorting to these other areas, then we can never really know the extent of the problem. The bottom line is that the information is a guide; it’s also a year old and incomplete. But it’s what we have.

In terms of solutions, many of the organizations have adopted a particular philosophy known as “Housing First,” which we’ll get into a bit more because it’s truly at the core of this issue. To bring us into that discussion, let’s hear again from TYT.

Kasparian: “I think the failure of the Housing First policy is that it kind of…it pursues a one size fits all approach to this issue. And this isn’t a simple issue. This is actually a much more complex issue. We do need to build more housing. There’s no question about that. But there are people who are struggling on the streets with severe addiction or severe mental health issues. So if you are someone who has a severe mental health condition, right, let’s say paranoid schizophrenia or something like that, you haven’t been getting the medical care you need. Just taking you and putting you in an apartment unit is not going to solve the problem.”

This is the worst part of their reporting and it’s where they focus the discussion for the balance of the segment. No one should be expected to be an expert in all things and this is where it gets dicey when you combine reporting and commentary in the new media landscape. The blurred lines between reporting and punditry—something that we all struggle to balance—makes it hard for viewers to build news literacy. In this case, it’s only by reading the entire report, sourcing organizations and thought leaders who work in this field and examining independent analyses that one can build a comprehensive understanding of an issue.

So if housing is a core “non-negotiable”, we have to be bulletproof. In this instance, it’s actually pretty easy, which makes this reporting almost unforgivable in my estimation. Here’s how easy this is…

It’s called Housing First. Not Housing Only.

Housing. First.

Chapter Three: Housing First: When Evidence Meets Ideology

In the face of this crisis, we actually know what works. The Housing First model, which prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness before addressing other issues like unemployment or substance abuse, has shown remarkable success wherever it’s been properly implemented. The evidence supporting this approach is overwhelming. Studies consistently show that when people are housed first, they’re better able to address other challenges in their lives, from mental health issues to substance use disorders to unemployment.

HUD’s own research confirms this. According to their analysis, nearly everyone who enters these programs remains housed. The approach is not only more effective than traditional models but also more cost-effective. Providing stable housing often costs less than the combined expenses of emergency services, law enforcement, and healthcare associated with chronic homelessness.

Yet despite this evidence, Housing First faces relentless opposition from conservative think tanks and politicians who seem more interested in defending ideology than solving problems. The Cato Institute, for instance, has attempted to discredit Housing First by cherry-picking data and misrepresenting outcomes. Their criticism often focuses on California’s implementation of Housing First principles, conveniently ignoring successful implementations elsewhere and the fact that California’s housing crisis is primarily driven by severe housing shortages and skyrocketing costs rather than any particular intervention strategy.

This ideological opposition to Housing First reveals a deeper truth about America’s homelessness crisis: it persists not because we don’t know how to solve it, but because powerful interests benefit from maintaining the status quo.

Housing First was pioneered by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in New York City in 1992 through his organization, Pathways to Housing. The approach emerged as a direct response to traditional “treatment first” models that required people experiencing homelessness to meet various prerequisites (such as sobriety or employment) before receiving housing assistance.

Tsemberis, a clinical psychologist, developed the model while working with people experiencing chronic homelessness who also had mental health conditions and substance use disorders. He observed that the traditional “housing readiness” approach often failed these individuals, as they struggled to meet program requirements while living on the streets.

The Housing First model is built on several fundamental principles:

• Immediate access to housing without preconditions
• Consumer choice and self-determination
• Recovery orientation
• Individualized and person-driven supports
• Social and community integration

When Pathways to Housing launched their pioneering program in New York City, the initial implementation proved so successful that it quickly caught the attention of other organizations and cities across the country. Early research studies validated what practitioners were seeing on the ground: this radical approach to ending homelessness was working.

The model gained significant momentum in the new millennium. In 2000, the National Alliance to End Homelessness made a landmark decision to endorse Housing First, marking a crucial shift in how the nation’s leading advocacy organization approached homelessness. This endorsement was followed by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness beginning to actively promote the model. During this period, several major cities launched their own Housing First initiatives, each adapting the core principles to their local contexts while maintaining fidelity to the original model.

The 2010s marked Housing First’s transition from an innovative approach to federal policy. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) elevated Housing First to a central role in its strategic plan to end homelessness. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) followed suit, incorporating Housing First principles into its programs serving homeless veterans. Perhaps most significantly, the model became standard practice across many Continuum of Care programs, fundamentally changing how communities approach homelessness.

Today, Housing First’s implementation spans a complex network of agencies and organizations across federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, four major agencies drive its implementation: HUD, the VA, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Each brings its unique resources and perspective to the work, creating a comprehensive federal approach to housing and supportive services.

That’s what drives me nuts about the lazy reporting on this issue. The headlines we choose to promote rip through the echo chamber like a bad game of telephone. That’s how we wind up with this being a one-and-done story that barely made it to national media. And when it did, whether on cable news, major publications or even TYT, the story reads: ‘homelessness is up and immigration is one of the primary drivers; looks like Housing First isn’t working.’

Allowing these narratives to persist means we’ll have difficulty building momentum for important, evidence-based solutions like Housing First.

I mean, the data is astounding. Looking first at housing stability, 85–90% of participants remain housed after their first year in the program. Even more impressive, long-term studies show that 75–80% maintain their housing after five years. These numbers stand in stark contrast to traditional treatment-first approaches, which typically see retention rates of only 30–40%.

The financial impact of Housing First is equally striking. A 2021 study in Denver found that Housing First participants generated 40% lower public costs compared to those in traditional programs. In Los Angeles County, a 2019 analysis revealed average savings of $20,000 per person annually. These findings echo earlier research from New York, which documented net savings of $10,100 per person per year. These cost savings stem from reduced use of emergency services, lower incarceration rates, and decreased need for crisis intervention.

The health impacts of Housing First extend far beyond cost savings. Communities implementing the model have seen emergency room visits drop by an average of 40%. Participants show marked improvements in mental health stability and demonstrate better management of chronic health conditions. Perhaps most importantly, they show increased engagement with primary care, shifting from crisis-driven to preventive healthcare.

Quality of life improvements paint a picture of comprehensive life transformation. Participants report improved food security, allowing them to maintain proper nutrition for the first time in years. They develop better social connections, rebuilding relationships with family and community. Employment rates increase as people gain the stability needed to secure and maintain jobs. Overall life satisfaction scores show significant improvements, reflecting the profound impact of having a stable place to call home.

During their segment, TYT casually notes that veteran homelessness actually decreased for the first time, which should be celebrated. A 2019 VA study found a 93% housing retention rate among veterans, accompanied by a 54% reduction in VA health costs and significant improvements in mental health outcomes. But they didn’t go one step further to point out that the VA adopted Housing First as a model! It’s like, come on.

And, as always, it’s important to break out of our ethnocentric bubble. International evidence further validates the model’s effectiveness. In Finland, the National Housing First Program has achieved incredible results, reducing long-term homelessness by 35% while generating cost savings of €15,000 per person annually. Their 80% housing retention rate after seven years demonstrates the model’s long-term sustainability.

Similarly, Austria and the Netherlands maintain extensive social housing systems that help prevent homelessness before it occurs. These countries typically spend a higher percentage of their GDP on housing assistance and maintain larger social housing stocks than the United States. The result? Lower rates of homelessness and greater housing stability for vulnerable populations.

It works here. It works there. It works everywhere…because it works.

Bring it Home, Max.

Conservative narratives about homelessness often focus on individual choices and personal responsibility, pointing to mental illness and substance use as primary causes. While these factors can certainly contribute to housing instability, this framework fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between housing insecurity and personal challenges.

The reality is that housing instability often precedes and exacerbates mental health and substance use issues rather than the other way around. Living on the streets is traumatic, and trauma can lead to or worsen mental health problems and substance use. Moreover, treating these issues effectively becomes nearly impossible without stable housing—try maintaining a medication schedule or attending regular therapy sessions while living in a tent or searching daily for a safe place to sleep.

The true drivers of America’s homelessness crisis are structural:

First off, there’s a severe shortage of affordable housing, particularly in major urban areas where jobs and opportunities are concentrated. Moreover, in recent decades, stagnant wages have combined with rising housing costs.

We also have inadequate social safety nets. The U.S. provides far less housing assistance and other social support compared to peer nations, leaving many vulnerable people without a backup plan when crisis strikes.

Then there’s the financialization of housing. The increasing treatment of housing as an investment vehicle rather than a basic need has led to policies that prioritize property values over housing accessibility. This is true for venture capital firms to individuals buying up rental properties for income on platforms like VRBO and Airbnb.

As usual, these are features of capitalism that turn into societal failures when the proper protections are removed. We have to make a choice. Either be a capitalist society in the way Adam Smith envisioned it, which is closer to the modern version of social democracy, or lean into democratic socialism where issues like healthcare, housing and labor are guaranteed and protected rights.

The human cost of homelessness is immeasurable—the trauma, lost potential, and shortened lives cannot be adequately quantified. But even in purely financial terms, for the most cold-hearted libertarian critic out there, our current approach is remarkably expensive. Studies consistently show that chronic homelessness costs taxpayers more in emergency services, healthcare, and law enforcement than providing permanent housing would.

Consider these costs:

Emergency room visits: People experiencing homelessness use emergency rooms at much higher rates than the housed population, often for conditions that could have been prevented or treated more effectively with stable housing.

Law enforcement and incarceration: The criminalization of homelessness leads to frequent interactions with law enforcement and higher rates of incarceration, all at taxpayer expense.

Emergency shelter systems: While necessary, emergency shelters are an expensive and inefficient way to address homelessness compared to permanent housing solutions.

Lost economic productivity: Homelessness makes maintaining employment nearly impossible, resulting in lost wages and economic output.

We have to get our side of the narrative down. The Left can’t get this part wrong because there are too many storms gathering right now that have the potential to turn this existing crisis into an all out catastrophe. Population displacement due to climate change, an aging population living on fixed incomes that cannot sustain current housing and rental prices, potential mass job losses due from AI job displacement and an administration that will undoubtedly contribute even further to widening inequality and loss of core services and safety net programs.

So before we talk about holistic solutions from government investment into public affordable housing, universal housing vouchers, decriminalizing homelessness, reforming zoning laws, strengthening rent control and wrap-around support services to protect the most vulnerable, we have to agree on certain fundamentals like Housing First and make universal shelter a non-negotiable rallying point.

Here endeth the lesson.