Homelessness is growing faster in Texas than in California
And other insights from the results of the 2023 Point-in-Time counts
Pop quiz: Which state had the fastest growing homeless population in 2023? California? Washington? Oregon?
Nope. New Hampshire.
The Granite State’s homeless population surged 52 percent between 2022 and 2023, barely edging out second place New Mexico (50%), but far ahead of (tied) third place New York and Colorado (39%), according to federal data released Friday. But New Hampshire’s a small state and it’s rate of homelessness (the number of homeless people per 10k residents) is near the national median, all but ensuring you’ll see few tents on your next visit. But the steep rise does highlight the ways in which the U.S. housing shortage is exacerbating homelessness in states often ignored by media coverage the issue.
For its part, California continued to lose ground. California’s homeless population grew six percent since 2022 to a record 181,399 individuals on any given night, or 28 percent of the total U.S. homeless population despite the state comprising only 12 percent of the total U.S. population. California’s unsheltered homeless population—comprised of individuals sleeping outside such as in tents or cars—increased seven percent to 123,423 individuals. Sixty-eight percent of homeless Californians lack access to shelter, the highest rate in the U.S.Â
California has spent over $17 billion fighting homelessness since 2019, so to have the homeless population continue growing, even at a slower rate, is pretty discrediting. That homelessness increased even faster, 15 percent, in the rest of the U.S., is cold comfort. On a per-capita basis, California was dethroned as the state with the highest rate of homelessness by Oregon, Vermont, and New York, whose homeless populations increased by 13, 19, and 40 percent, respectively. Homelessness in Texas and Florida, California’s top ideological and economic rivals, increased 12 and 18 percent, respectively. Homelessness in the Bay Area fell four percent, led by 23 and 22 percent declines in Contra Costa and Sonoma Counties. The counts for other Bay Area counties remained within 3 percent of their 2022 counts.Â
The results demonstrate the national spread of a housing shortage whose symptoms first emerged in California about a decade ago. Across the U.S., housing costs remain the best predictor of high rates of homelessness, better than either poverty or substance abuse rates. The results also highlight the inability to scale permanent supportive housing, the favored intervention of homeless advocates, faster than the rate at which the state’s housing shortage is creating homeless people. California has added about 36k units of all Permanent Housing since 2019 even as the number on people sleeping on California’s streets increased by 15k during the same period. Unsheltered homelessness has been shown to drastically increase risk of assault, homicide, infectious disease, chronic disease, accidental death, while worsening psychiatric disorders and substance abuse disorders and depriving all Californians of access to public spaces.
Long term, California must build enough homes to bring median rents down to an affordable range for more people, which will reduce our rate of homelessness so that public services can concentrate on people for whom the housing market cannot be made to reach. But that’s a long term play. In the near term, California needs to prioritize quickly scaling interim solutions, like the Opportunity Housing model built by providers like DignityMoves, that can bring people indoors and save lives for as little as $50k a door vs. over $600k for permanent housing. Moving residents of interim housing into permanent housing will be another challenge, but that’s a fundamentally better problem to have than moving 123k people dying on our streets without access to shelter or sanitation.
I have a question: you mentioned all the issues associated with unsheltered homelessness: assault, homicide, substance abuse, etc.
There are services that cities and counties have to combat and mitigate at least some of those things, and those services cost money. Are those costs included in the $17 billion sum you mentioned?