California Needs to Learn from Houston & Dallas; Especially about Homelessness Homelessness in California cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles has dramatically worsened, marked by sprawling tent encampments, public health hazards, and deteriorating quality of life. Despite spending over $27 billion, California fails to create systems that effectively reduce homelessness. In contrast, Houston and Dallas have successfully lowered street homelessness by building coordinated, performance-driven systems. --- Key Comparisons: California vs. Houston & Dallas Homeless Population Trends (2015-2022): Los Angeles County’s homeless population surged by 56%. Houston’s homeless population fell by 32%. Homelessness Rates: California houses 28% of the U.S. homeless population but has only 12% of the national population. San Francisco’s homelessness rate is nearly 20 times higher than Houston’s. --- What Texas Cities Built Centralized Authority: Houston created a “backbone” organization (Coalition for the Homeless) with control over funding, unified data systems, and enforcement of performance standards across 100+ partners. Dallas’s Housing Forward restructured leadership to include philanthropy, corporations, and government, not just service providers. Unified Intake and Data: All partners use the same data system with mandated unified intake for consistent vulnerability assessments and prioritization. Performance metrics (housing placements, time to placement, retention) are tracked transparently. Flexible Funding and Operational Autonomy: Federal, local, and private funds are braided to support housing placements. Case managers retain freedom in client engagement methods within a performance framework. Results: Houston housed over 33,000 people since 2012 with 90% retention. Homelessness rate in Houston is the lowest among major U.S. metros. Dallas’s pilot housed 107 chronically homeless individuals in under 100 days with no recurring encampment. --- California’s Dysfunctional Approach Fragmentation vs. Coordination: 44 different Continuums of Care operate without unified data or standards. Over 9 state agencies administer 41 programs with incompatible strategies. Enforcement strategies displace homeless without sufficient housing, causing encampments to move rather than disappear. Political and Institutional Challenges: Nonprofits in homelessness services receive political protection, lack accountability, and provide activity metrics without focusing on outcomes. Example: Urban Alchemy - a nonprofit that manages street disorder with poorly supervised workers has had incidents of violence against staff, allegations of misconduct, and resists transparency despite millions in public contracts. Housing Bottleneck: California has a structural deficit of 3.5 million housing units. Builds fewer than 80,000 homes annually while 180,000 are needed. Regulatory barriers like zoning laws and litigation prevent housing development. Cost to build supportive housing units in Los Angeles averages $600,000, compared with Houston’s cheaper housing market. Failed Strategies: Permissive tolerance era allowed encampments to grow unrestrained. Enforcement era now forcibly relocates encampments every few days without housing solutions, spreading instability and uncertainty city-wide. --- Political Choices and Consequences California’s political leadership chose to protect existing nonprofit and bureaucratic interests rather than build effective systems. Houston and Dallas, despite being blue cities in red states, confronted nonprofit interests and centralized authority, resulting in functional systems. California’s approach wastes billions while worsening homelessness and urban decay. --- Recommendations for Reform (Based on Texas Model) 1.